I love you guys

Thank you very much webmaster for taking your time to read this letter. My name is paul and I am a christian. You posted a letter I wrote a couple of months ago and I thank you for that. Though we are at odds with each other about the reality of the faith of Christ, I believe you and your fellow site members present your arguments well. However the issue I wanted to bring up to you was the subject of evil and the God of Scripture. I have read many articles on this site that shows the inconsistent reality between an all loving, all powerful and all knowing God and the problem of nature and prevailling evil. I do agree that if you are dealing with a general theistic god or even the god of deism, there is no real answer to why such a god would allow evil if he were all loving and all powerfull. However even though no one on this site accepts the God of the Bible as being real, you can't deny the fact that the argument of evil could not disprove the Biblical God. The reason being that this God is a God of revelation, and He has revealed His plan for sin and evil. The problem with the regular contructs of the theistic god and deistic god is that they are not gods of divine revelation, and henceforth we can not know thier true entents. In most cases theisic philosophers borrow atributes from the Biblical God and apply them to thier own ideas of a Supreme Being. Now please understand I am not saying any of this proves that God exists, I am simply trying to make an argument that the problem of evil isen't a problem for the Christian God. You may not like this God's plans, you may not want to love Him, but you can't say He does not exist on this point alone. I do believe that people do create personel gods in thier own minds and the god Americans refer to in most cases is not the God of the Bible. I would really love to here everyones response and hear different veiw points. I love you guys, and God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit loves you infinitly more.

Paul

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a joke, right?

The “plan” for dealing with “sin” and evil as “revealed” in the christian bible is so downright unfair and just plain ridiculous that it has turned many away from christianity.

I know it did for me. Even as a child, I thought such a monstrosity could not exist; as I got older and learned about the history of how the bible was created over centuries by various men, many with political agendas, that clinched it for me: There may or may not be something that could be called god, but it certainly ain’t that crazy one in the bible.

Let’s see: Bible god created evil, as is clearly stated in Isaiah 45:7. You’d think he would have seen the folly in that. But, no.

When he got around to creating a couple of humans, he put a forbidden tree in their path, even though he as omniscient being, he knew exactly what was going to happen. Then, when they did exactly what he had set them up to do, that supposedly ushered in “original sin” from which all humans need salvation. (Never mind all that contradictory stuff elsewhere in the bible about how no one is held responsible for any sin other than his own.)

Time passes. God gets ticked off with his own imperfect creation and throws some major hissy fits, once drowning the entire world except for an old drunk and his family and pets and another time smashing a couple of cities, except for another old drunk and his incestuous daughters.

More time passes. God’s imperfect creation just keeps on being imperfect. People keep “sinning” But, in the end, everyone ever begotten eventually dies and that’s it.

Then, centuries later, god gets this brilliant idea. (What took him so long to think that one up?) Anyway, it’s no longer sufficient that the good and the bad alike live out their lives and eventually die.

So god decides to come down to earth in the form of his own son, spends about three years preaching and doing magic tricks, dies a cruel death – but not really, cause you can’t keep a good god down – and then reigns eternally in heaven (some “sacrifice,” aye?), where we all get to join him after we die (sounds boring, but I’ve heard the climate is nice.) Except, if we “sin,” which can include something so innocuous as questioning god, we suffer eternally in hell, where the climate is not so nice.

Oh yeah, and God, Jr.’s so-called sacrifice didn’t change a thing. There’s still plenty of evil and what you fundies call “sin.”

Nope. I don’t believe it. It doesn’t make sense, and, as Judge Judy so often says, “If it doesn’t make sense, it didn’t happen.”

Anonymous said...

Is He going to love them after they split hell down the middle. You are a moron.

Anonymous said...

So this "plan for sin and evil" is all going to work itself out in the end? It's all going to be hunky dory, skipping in the flowers? God is inflicting upon the world: famine, disease, war, genetic disorders, sectarian violence and barney the dinosaur for OUR OWN GOOD!?!

This is the kind of shit you expectto hear from abused wives, just on a WAAAAAAYYYY bigger scale.
Fuck paul and everyone who talks like paul, apologetic prick.

Piprus said...

Well of course the problem of evil isn't the christian god's problem, Paul. Why should it be? He's god, after all, right? He created evil, he promoted it, allows one of his archangels to personify it, allows his followers to dream up new forms of it, and allows it all to happen and keep on happening, for what purpose other than perhaps his amusement.

If this feeble piece of tripe is your idea of an apologetic, you've a long way to go.

And by the way...those of us who do not believe, are that way for many more reasons than just the question of evil.

SpaceMonk said...

Personally this is not one of the cornerstones of my disbelief, but what your saying doesn't even make sense.

Other 'gods' have their plans revealed in holy books and writings. What made you think Yahweh is the only one?

...and not all other religions see 'evil' the same way as the bible for them to need a plan for it to even be resolved.

What is evil anyway?

Also, you may be interested in this too then:
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2006/10/i-challenge-any-theist-on-web-to.html

Steven Bently said...

You love us??? Ha...Ha!!!

No! You love the feeling of self-righteousness that a belief in Christianity affords you!!!

You said God is a God of revelation. Do you even know or have an idea of what you're saying?

According to the Bible, Satan was the most beautiful Angel in Heaven, this is presuming that Angels exist, this is also presuming that a God exists.

How could a perfect all knowing, all loving God or Angel become currupt? How could an (Angel) itself, become currupt in a perfect sinless environment (in God's Heavenly Perfect Dommain), unless of course there was curruption already started by a greater force, much greator than either your Bible God, and his nemisis?

The Bible is man's revelation to people through human fallacy, to satisfy their longing for answers, for which we still do not have!

How could a pure sinless Heaven suddenly become currupt on a pure and sinless Gods' watch????

To suddenly become currupt from a non-corruptive environment????

This is a mans answer, not a God's answer!!!

Then God punishes man and woman for their sins, yet Satan, God's most beloved Angel, gets to roam the universe without punishment, and just keep on corrupting, that's why Men wrote Revelations, by having to clear up their fallacy (their written lies)by having Satan punished in the end.

It's all bullshit, that non of us should have ever been exposed to, including you, Paul!

If it where believable, then there would not have been any room for doubt by anyone.

That's why a placebo of faith is needed to cast the wool over one's eyes.

Paul, all you have is a book written from a collection of ancient dope-using sheep herders, there's nothing in the Bible even remotely believable.

A God nor Jesus never wrote the first word in the Bible, because anyone would have been ashamed to have signed their name as being the authors to the Bible.

Notice that the Bible writers only left their first names, because they did not want anyone to look them up and beat the living crap out of them, for making up such fantastic unbelievable lies.

It's time to burn those Bibles and live by what people know is real, not by what they want to believe.

Anonymous said...

As mentioned before, the problem of evil is only one of the problems Christianity has.

The clincher for me was learning about all of the other religious traditions that the Bible was taken from. Years ago, the Judeo-Christian apologists insisted that the reverse was true; these 'false' religions were based upon the Bible (and furthermore, God did not agree that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery), but as carbon dating techniques were refined over the years, the archeologists were vindicated. The Bible is the official rip-off.

That was good enough for me to leave it all behind without any qualms or fanfare.

Anonymous said...

For god so loved the world,
he had to kill himself
in order to appease himself
so he wouldn't have to force himself
to roast his beloved creations
alive for all eternity.

He loves us more than we can comprehend.
But if we don't love him back,
he will send us to hell
to suffer forever and forever.

That really is amazing grace.

freeman said...

Jebus died for our sins and to take them away! So, our sin is denial, but jebus died to take that sin upon himself. Therefor, all is forgiven and we all go to heaven with John Wayne Gacy.

Anonymous said...

God is not willing that anyone should perish, but 100% of people do, a lie within itself!

Avie said...

Hi there, Paul!

First off, I've got to say that you word your argument well. It's rare that I can read anything written by a devout Christian and not be furiously angry by the end of it. You're unusual in that you don't seem to want to insult those who are different. And believe me, from what I've seen of Christians, that's a rare trait indeed!

I believe you are correct in your point that the presense of sin and evil in the world does not discredit the god of the Bible, as the god of the Bible is not the kind, merciful shepherd that a lot of people want to see. Having read most of the Bible, inlcuding the obscure parts that are not taught in Sunday school, I know the nature of the Biblical God. The "bait and switch" tactic I was fed in church & in Sunday school and by my family is one of things that turned me off to Christianity. (That, and the way I was treated in church after church, but that's an entirely separate issue.)

The question of why evil exists in the world has never been an issue as to why I no longer believe in the Christian God. For me, the world has always been a place of opposites that bring each other into existance. Light/dark, right/wrong, peace/war, sorrow/joy, summer/winter, east/west, good/evil, good deity/evil deity, God/Satan...in every facet of our world, there are opposites. One cannot exist without the other, so they truly need each other.

No, my reason for rejecting Christianity and its God is lack of evidence. No one can prove to me this deity exists. And no one can prove that he doesn't. To give my life, heart, and soul to such a big maybe is not in me. (The same goes for many other ancient gods. Zeus, Ra, Baal, et al. There's no proof they exist. There's no proof they don't. I don't worship them, either.)

Still, I like the argument you made. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to express myself on this subject.

~Avie

Anonymous said...

Geez, Paul!

God is evil. Why else would he made an individual like you who doesn't even know how to spell?

Yeah, I love you too, what the heck? What is there not to love about a person innocent enough to believe what he doesn't understand?

You surely believe in Santa Claus, also. So I hope this Christmas, he will bring you everything you asked for.

Anonymous said...

Nicolas says: To all the smartasses, I would like to say that as an ex-christian, I have felt offended by the lies and fear I was fed too, but I don't think it's appropriate to bash any one. You can have a civilized debate like an adult and get further.

To Paul: Comming from a man that studied the Bible exhaustively for four years in prison everyday and had high aspirations of becomming a preacher, when I finally realized the truth of the origins of Biblical "facts", world religions, etc. and how closely they resembled eachother in one way or another, I could no longer deny the truth which is that Christianity and the Bible along with every other religion to date hold no water, no truth, no "divine revelation" as you suggest.

Hope you get free from the shackles of superstitious bondage.

Nvrgoingbk said...

Paul, as said before, the "problem of evil" is only one of the excellent arguments against an omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent god.

Here are a few more arguments against superstitious belief in such a god:

1. Lack of evidence
2. Lack of undeniable miracles such
as an amputee growing a limb
3. The diversity of "revealed" gods
around the world (which one do
we put our faith in?)
4. Hypocrisy on the part of the
religions' followers
5. Contradictions between
scientific findings and
relgious stories' explanations
6. Contradictions within the very
religious texts themselves
7. Ridiculous stories, promises,
commands and laws that any
rational mind would reject were
it not for the fear that the
said religion inspires simply
for questioning such
rdiculousness

I hope, that since your really are interested in hearing other points of view, you will take this list into consideration. I'm sure my fellow exes here can add to the list.

Nvrgoingbk said...

I'd like to add that christian love is an oxymoron. You said that you love us, but believe in a God that tells you how you will rejoice at our suffering in Hell simply for not believing the atrocities and comedy that make up the Bible. If you really "love" us, perhaps you should change religions to a more all-inclusive one that doesn't discriminate on the basis of sex, birth defects, birth order, divorce, or religious or nonreligious beliefs.

Anonymous said...

Thackerie,

"So god decides to come down to earth in the form of his own son...

You may not believe in Christianity but you still believe their 'spin' on the New Testament. So do most others here it seems.

The New Testament does NOT say that Jesus was god or any part thereof. As I've already explained on other threads, it does NOT talk about life after death - in hell or in heaven. These are 'figurative' terms. It only points to a hope for the future when those who 'sleep' in the dust of the earth shall awake.

It's hardly the fault of the New Testament writers that the Graeco-Roman fathers later introduced the outlandish doctrines of virgin birth, trinity, divinity, original sin, pre-existence...shall I go on?

So there's plenty of other stuff in the NT that you don't like - fine. But before you all go ballistic at me, let's get a few facts straight at least. Perhaps, then, we can have some real debate.

So you're all hurting - so was I. Only those raised by black-habited nuns in an old-fashioned catholic convent, forced to attend the Latin rite mass with its bleeding statues and clouds of incense could truly appreciate the skills involved in getting little toddlers to wet their pants in fear of eternal damnation. There was an old adage "you can take the girl out of the convent but you can never take the convent out of the girl". Never a truer word spoken. Guilt and fear will be their companions for life.

I'm ready...

Anonymous said...

Paul,
I wonder if you actually read the comments that follow your posting? I wonder if you really care??

I want you to know that I and the group I belong to are happy for you, if you have found a religion that makes you happy. But religion should be a personal thing, not something that is forced or bullied on others.

And all too often, organized religion has as its focus, the conversion of all "non-believers".

Anonymous said...

Paul, shouldn't the original sin be that a God either allowed or created Satan in the first place? Not Adam and Eve, since they had no control over the influence and creation of invisible beings.

The original sin was, a God allowing an evil being to exist and allowing it to escape from the pearly gates of Heaven, from the get go.

Paul can't you see what a crock the Bible is??? G-day

Anonymous said...

Instead of Christians like yourself wasting time defending his apparent crapness, let's see if he has grasped the basics of the internet yet.

I challenge him to come on here and defend himself.

boomSLANG said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
boomSLANG said...

The New Testament does NOT say that Jesus was god or any part thereof. As I've already explained on other threads, it does NOT talk about life after death - in hell or in heaven. These are 'figurative' terms. It only points to a hope for the future when those who 'sleep' in the dust of the earth shall awake.

'Got it---"figuative". Okay, and as I've already driven home the point on other threads---who "figures" out what this "figurative" and thoroughly abiguous biblical language means, you? It appears so, and that's the problem---EACH INDIVIDUAL figures it out, and/or, picks their denomination; their "version"; their interpretation. When the language is clearly subjectively written, a "spin", is a "spin", is a "spin", is a "spin". Furthermore, what is the underlying point? Is there an objective argument for a "God" anywhere in any of this "I know what the New Testament means, and you don't", hypothesis? I wouldn't think so, since quote: "an 'intellegent being' is 'outside' our understanding."

If we are to have a "real debate", let's cut to the chase. Here's my case: If Jesus existed and was just a mortal being---a "man", well, he's dead....non-existant in any form. As far as Jesus' alleged "Father"..i.e...an "intelligent being"..or, God, I see no more evidence of this "being" than I do for Zeuz, Osiris, Allah...or any other supposed supernatural "being". If such an entity exists, then "it" is outside, or beyond, my understanding, and thus, cannot be known with any certainty, now. Thanks.

SpaceMonk said...

Vynette: "You may not believe in Christianity but you still believe their 'spin' on the New Testament. So do most others here it seems..."

It doesn't require belief to be able to argue within the limits set by the New Testament - and show christians that even so, it is still a crock.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
- Aristotle

Anonymous said...

"The New Testament does NOT say that Jesus was god or any part thereof. As I've already explained on other threads, it does NOT talk about life after death - in hell or in heaven. These are 'figurative' terms. It only points to a hope for the future when those who 'sleep' in the dust of the earth shall awake."

Yeah, back when I was a teenager, when I made a few fleeting, feeble attempts to be a liberal christian, I also tried to convince myself that this Jesus character was a nice guy who was just trying to spread the love while sticking it to the religious establishment of his day – sort of the hippest hippy of them all. And, I could have just kept on believing that if I had limited myself to cherry-picking only the warm and fuzzy verses and declaring that everything else meant something other than what the words said.

But, I really wouldn’t have been a christian, and the vast majority of people who do label themselves as christians would have agreed that I was not one of them. For the vast majority of christians (and the vast majority of biblical scholars of any faith or lack thereof) do indeed interpret the NT as saying that jesus = god. If you do a google search on this subject, you’ll find thousands of website – quoting dozens of verses – that back up this interpretation.

And that’s what my first response to the original post was about – the commonly agreed upon christian concept of “god’s revealed plan” for dealing with “sin” that Paul brought up. It was not my intention to derail this discussion by going off on unrelated tangents concerning alternative interpretations of the New Testament.

Anonymous said...

By the way, Bentley, the Bible does not say that Satan was the most beautiful angel in Heaven or the angel most beloved to God. Those are traditional Christian teachings that originated with extra-biblical sources.

Anonymous said...

Vynette:

You're right about the NT teaching a resurrection rather than an afterlife that begins just after death. You are wrong about the divinity of Jesus. The New Testament absolutely does teach that Jesus was God:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." -- John 1:1-3,13.

This gospel writer borrows the concept Logos from ancient philosopher Heraclitus (cr. 535 – 475 BC), then very clearly turns it into the mystical concept of a God who was present at creation, then came to the earth as a man. It was supposed to appeal to Jews familiar with Sophia, the goddess of Wisdom who was with God at creation, and also appeal to Helenists familiar with "Logos."

J. C. Samuelson said...

Vynette,

I must have missed something in the other threads, because I'm still trying to figure out exactly what point you're trying to make. In any event, what you've presented is a red herring (aka ignoratio elenchi). No offense, but what you're saying here is irrelevant to either belief in the Christian god or theodicy (the problem of evil).

"The New Testament does NOT say that Jesus was god or any part thereof."

One can quibble over whether the verses that support Jesus' divinity outnumber those that don't, but it is a fact that Christians draw their conclusions about this directly from the Bible, and they can cite chapter and verse to support that idea. You can argue they misinterpret or misunderstand various verses but that's really beside the point, and places you squarely in the company of - well, everyone who claims to have a superior understanding of the text. In case you haven't noticed, that's quite a large number of people who can't agree. One more reason not to lend the Bible any credence whatsoever.

"As I've already explained on other threads, it does NOT talk about life after death - in hell or in heaven. These are 'figurative' terms. It only points to a hope for the future when those who 'sleep' in the dust of the earth shall awake."

See above.

It's hardly the fault of the New Testament writers that the Graeco-Roman fathers later introduced the outlandish doctrines of virgin birth, trinity, divinity, original sin, pre-existence...shall I go on?

No need to go on. If blame need be assigned, it rests fully with the NT authors. Not that it matters, but Christians aren't pulling these ideas out of their collective hind end. As was already mentioned, they can cite chapter and verse to support their positions.

I agree that all of those positions are outlandish, but not because I think Christians don't know their holy book (though many don't). They are outlandish because they are not an accurate description of reality.

If you're setting out to destroy the doctrinal basis of Christianity, so be it. I ask you though, who are you trying to persuade?

Steven Bently said...

S_W,

Ezekiel 28:12-15 describes Satan as an exceedingly beautiful angel. Satan was likely the highest of all angels, the most beautiful of all of God's creations.

While this passage is referring specifically to the king of Babylon and the King of Tyre, it may reference the spiritual power that was behind those kings - Satan.

This is the xtain take on Satan, I personally do not believe in Satan nor the God of the buybull.

I was hoping Paul would come back and address our proclaimations, since he loves us all so much, I 'm sure he's in his study praying about returning with his soul-winning answers.

Andrew Hawkins said...

"The argument of evil could not disprove the Biblical God".

"..but you can't say He does not exist on this point alone".


I say that Biblical God does not exist on this point.

I say to you that the God of the old testament is portrayed as evil because events such as natural disasters occurred and the people of the time could not explain them and therefore blamed God.

Look at one of the best known stories of the bible: Noah's Ark. The story goes that the people of the world were wicked and God destroyed them all in a flood and saved one man and his family for being God-fearing.

God put a rainbow in the sky to say that he would never flood the world again. I put it to you that it is more likely that there was a natural disaster such as a tsunami that could not be explained so the people of the time blamed God and the story of Noah's attempts to stay alive were passed down and became myth.

Well, God, you certainly forgot your promise on boxing day 2004 when you killed 184,168 innocent people. Most of which will rot in hell because most were likely to be Muslims.

Paul, do not look for the answers within your own framework of knowledge. Instead, follow a path that most of the ex-christians on this web site have followed. They have treaded a path that is one of rationality and science.

And, by the way. I love you too Paul. I have a deep respect for humans and I don't need a God to tell me that I should love everyone or go to hell.

Anonymous said...

J.C.Samuelson,

"If you're setting out to destroy the doctrinal basis of Christianity, so be it. I ask you though, who are you trying to persuade?"

Very good question. The reasons for my postings here I thought would have become obvious by now.

What would be the best, perhaps only way to loosen the churches stranglehold on the 'faithful'?

The strategy I've been pursuing on my own blog is to divorce Jesus and the New Testament from those who claim to be acting in his name. Throw up a mental roadblocks and hurdles. Introduce doubt into the minds of ordinary Christian folk. This can only be done by demonstrating the falsity of their doctrines.

I'm the eternal optimist in that I continue to hope that others will take up the same strategies.
There is more than enough evidence to completely demolish the doctrines. It is not a matter of 'cherry picking' at all. It is the churches who cite their proof texts taken out of context, not I.

Steamboat-Willey demonstrates this when he cites their favourite text - John 1:1 - as proof that the New Testament taught that Jesus was God.

I'm sure nobody wants to suffer through a thesis-length exposition of this theme but it can be refuted utterly.

boomSLANG said...

j. c. Samuelson: "If you're setting out to destroy the doctrinal basis of Christianity, so be it. I ask you though, who are you trying to persuade?"

Very good question. The reasons for my postings here I thought would have become obvious by now.

'Guessin' you thought wrong.

What would be the best, perhaps only way to loosen the churches stranglehold on the 'faithful'?

"Obvious reason" for posting: Riddle-me this?

The strategy I've been pursuing on my own blog is to divorce Jesus and the New Testament from those who claim to be acting in his name. Throw up a mental roadblocks and hurdles. Introduce doubt into the minds of ordinary Christian folk. This can only be done by demonstrating the falsity of their doctrines.

'Got the mental road blocks part...::cough:: lol

Then....

I'm the eternal optimist in that I continue to hope that others will take up the same strategies.

Uh, people are already using the ol' use the bible to justify whatever you want it to say, strategy. Nothing new.

There is more than enough evidence to completely demolish the doctrines. It is not a matter of 'cherry picking' at all. It is the churches who cite their proof texts taken out of context, not I.

No, not you. lol

Okay, still not "obvious". So 'tell ya what...why don't you help us slow learners out--- not to mention the gazillion Christians who erroneously believe that Jesus is God---by tellin' us, not what the New Testament doesn't mean, but what you "think" it does mean. Again, cut to the chase, already. "Divorcing Jesus"...blah blah blah---"it can be refuted", blah blah blah...so?....WHAT?

Anonymous said...

Boomslang, as simply as possible then -

The hope of Israel, as expressed in the Old Testament, was the establishment on earth of the Kingdom of God under the kingship of an anointed one - a 'messiah'.

After the Exodus, YHVH was seen as a 'deliverer' who had saved his people through his human agent, Moses.

Throughout subsequent centuries and manifold troubles, an idea arose that YHVH would one day send another 'deliverer' - one like Moses - who would save his people from their enemies.

The prophets, each building and enlarging upon the expectations of his predecessors, finally developed a complete picture of this 'deliverer', this 'messiah'.

He would be a descendant of King David; he would usher in the Kingdom of God on earth; he would rule as its king in the name of YHVH.

Many Christians are ignorant of the 'messianic' mindset of Jesus' contemporaries and this ignorance has facilitated the building up of doctrinal absurdities centred around the personality cult of 'Jesus Christ'.

The New Testament portrays Jesus of Nazareth as this longed-for messiah, a perfectly normal human who was chosen by YHVH as an instrument of intervention into wordly affairs.

The interpretive principle of the New Testament is the way in which it reconciles the 'physical' nature of messianic expectations with a totally unexpected 'spiritual' fulfilment.

Its two major themes are John's gospel of love and the Pauline principle of inner and spiritual identification with Jesus, with a self-imposed 'crucifixion' and 'resurrection.'

Regardless of varying perspectives, however, most of the New Testament was written for the purpose of convincing the Jew that the much-heralded Kingdom of God on earth would not become a reality through the 'works of the law' but by universal emulation of the principles for which Jesus lived and died.

Well...Boomslang asked for my 'thoughts' on the meaning of the New Testament...

boomSLANG said...

Review: The framework thus created sets the scene for a classic dénouement that integrates the entire work and postulates the existence of a centuries-old ‘conspiracy’, breathtaking in its scope and ambition, factual in essence but fictional in the detail.

"Factual in essence"?...but "fictional in detail"? How concise. lol.

Okay, again...WHO determines the scope of what "details" are fact?... and what are fiction? WHO draws the arbitrary line between "essence" and "facts"? Completely subjective. F%ck it---nevermind.

Vynette--simple question: Do you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent supernatural personal deity, or not? Yes or no? If so, where do you derive your evidence for such a "being"?

There, that should do it = )

(Yeah right)lol

Anonymous said...

Boomslang,

I am at a loss to understand how a review of a book I wrote several years ago has any relevance to our discussions here. That book is a novel - a work of fiction.

Why the quote?????

boomSLANG said...

Sorry it took so long, it's just that I find it much easier to debate/converse with people who establish their position from the get-go = )

Okay, no, the review had no direct relevance. However, I saw a bit of irony in the reviewer's words(the emphasized part)... and those exact words come to mind whenever you talk about the New Testament and it's "Nazarene Jesus"...factual in essence but fictional in the detail. lol. Could such a conclusion be anymore ambiguous?

PS: Thanks for answering those questions ; )

Like I said..nevermind.

Anonymous said...

Boomslang, you asked me a "simple question: Do you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent supernatural personal deity, or not? Yes or no? If so, where do you derive your evidence for such a "being"?

Yes. No evidence that would satisfy you. Funny thing, though, the reason for my 'belief' is physical. In fact, it's more than belief, it's absolute certainty. And I'm not saying this because I think it's required - a 'believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved' sort of thing. I have no option now, not after what happened to me. Physical things happened to me. But it's a personal thing - could I ever convince anyone who was determined against it from the outset?

I did write a document at the time, complete with photographs. One day, when I have the strength, I'll give it to whoever might gain some comfort from it, but I'll never enter into any debate about it because it's so personally grevious that, even now, three years on, I can't bring myself to type it, even in this anonymous place.

I hope you can now see why I hesitated to answer your very valid questions.

Steven Bently said...

Vynette:
Boomslang, you asked me a "simple question: Do you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent, omni benevolent supernatural personal deity, or not? Yes or no? If so, where do you derive your evidence for such a "being"?

Yes. No evidence that would satisfy you. Funny thing, though, the reason for my 'belief' is physical. In fact, it's more than belief, it's absolute certainty. And I'm not saying this because I think it's required - a 'believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved' sort of thing. I have no option now, not after what happened to me. Physical things happened to me. But it's a personal thing - could I ever convince anyone who was determined against it from the outset?

We get these same type of answers all the time. I think we can handle it though, we're pretty much open minded here at extain.

Another misconception, we're not determined against any evidence that anyone can provide, just to say that "God exists" is the very same thing that the Bible says, so there's nothing new there, we're hoping and looking for any physical evidence outside of the Bible, not that just by seeing the Earth and it's inhabitants and saying "God did it!" Maybe a God did do it, but we want to see the evidence of a God beyond what our eyes can see.

Since many come on here claiming to have evidence of a God beyond the scope of the Bible, but yet when it's time to show us their evidence, they conveniently bow out, just as you're doing now Vynette, your evidence is sufficient enough for you, but you're saying that your evidence would not qualify for evidence for us.

Since we're all human beings here, we have the ability to experience things in the very same realm as you, wouldn't you agree, so if you have some type of evidence that we can experience wouldn't you be doing all of humanity a disservice by withholding your evidence, unless of course the evidence you have is merely a fabrication that you have incorporated in your mind to help you deal with some type of physical trauma to help you cope with that situation, although you did say that you wrote a document with photographs.

I really think you would be doing the whole world a complete disservice by withholding evidence of a God, I mean you apparently have the throws to change the whole world in your possession. We can all start anew today by examining your evidence, if it's sufficient for proof then that is all anyone will need.

Just think Vynette, there would be no longer a need to believe, there would be no use for the word faith, Vynette you would be held high amongst the Saints, by opening up new channels of absolute truth that has been withheld for the longing for thousands of years, you could immediatly disspell so many man made religions and no more need for Vicars to plead for faith.

You Vynette, have the power to change the entire world in just one day and remain anonymous if you wish, yet you do not feel up to it.

I completely understand, sometimes I have to force myself out of the bed in the mornings to get going some days.

Anonymous said...

Paul
All you have is a relationship with words.
Your god is a book.

You are just a member of the book club.
The muslems have a book.
The mormons have a book.
The christians have a book.

They all say that they have the truth and that we must believe by faith.

Your invisable friend paul is no other than yourself.

Paul check this out
www.jesusneverexisted.com
www.christianism.com
Shame on you for agreeing with eternal torment
infinite punishment for finite sin ?,
shame shame shame

ps.

For this endless journey bring all the love you can For every man and woman love that is who i am.

Nvrgoingbk said...

Vynette,
You claim that your evidence, your infallible belief in Jesus is physical, and that you have no choice after what happened to you, yet you will not share your testimony with us. You claim that you have "absolute certainty", yet refuse to share this undeniable evidence with the rest of us who need that in order to believe. You refuse us the remedy that might thereby be instrumental in saving our souls. THis evidence you have may be exactly what the world needs to settle the question of which God is the right one. THis evidence you possess could bring an end to the holy wars of religion. I mean, if it was so defining a moment for you, why not for the rest of us? It might just in fact be the kind of HOLY SHIT proof we need.

Oh, wait, I know, we have to take it on faith, blah, blah, blah. Or maybe, it was just a personal revelation for you. If that is the case than why didn't your GAWD answer our desperate pleas for the same. WHy didn't he present "himself" in an undeniable way to us? Why, when the fate of our eternal souls depended on belief in Him?

I am a mother of three children. I would never think to leave them alone in the world from birth and have others tell them that I exist, tell them that I love them, have other men write a book with a bunch of rules for them to obey,send others to hopefully care for their needs, make them sing praises to me, pray to me, tell others about me, and just believe I exist in "faith" that I might actually really exist and then send them to an eternal torture chamber if they didn't.

No, I, as a loving mother, would tenderely rock them to sleep, IIIIIII would sing praises to THEM, I would bind up their wounds, hold their hands on the way to their first day of school, tuck them into bed at night, and feed them when they are hungry.

Your God, however, does none of these things. Our cries go unanswered for years, children die of starvation and disease everday, CHristians begging their murderer or rapist for mercy and calling upon God to save them are met by a silent sky, the praises we sung to him never recieved an audible applause...

I encourage you to share this "proof" you have, this evidence that may render us somehow incapable of denying your God's existence.

boomSLANG said...

Dear Vynette,

I said "nevermind", not because I was being smug, but because I really meant it. I said it because, firstly, I strongly suspected an agenda, or at the very least, that you had motives for posting here, from the on-set. What we come to expect from you, and those like you:

You know "God" is "real"; you know your interpretation of your "Holy Book" is the "absolute truth", and all others somehow have it "wrong"; you know your encounter with your deity was of a 'physical' nature, and therefore, absolutely "true".

Vynette, it's the same ol' song and dance.....THAT'S why I said "nevermind". I WILL say, I find your particular interpretation of the bible especially entertaining..i.e..."Jesus is NOT "God".."there's no heaven or hell", etc. Especially when it's in conjuction with such comments as "an intelligent being is outside our understanding". I just got done responding to someone else who says they "know" their God is "real". I issued a challenge there if you're interested--it's in "A Sabbatical/my Anti-testimony"....not to mention, you seem to have quite a few challenges here. Think about it--you, Vynette, could win a Noble prize for providing your "absolute" evidence for "God".

Anonymous said...

Dear all,

I realise that some of you may be mocking me, and that's understandable. I hardly believe it myself. I've decided to make the document available, not to prove anything, but in good faith in case it might provide some comfort to those in need of it. Other comments I have made on this blog set out my theological or non-theological position quite clearly, I hope.

I won't be visiting this place again. After you've read the document, you'll understand why.

Farewell

I don't know how to make a link here so you'll have to visit my blog, The Race is Run. I'll post it there shortly. It's a fairly large .pdf file so I don't know if I can even upload it successfully.

south2003 said...

Vynette,

Wait, don't leave before describing what god looks like. I beg of you. I might find some comfort in that.

Thanks

south2003 said...

Nvrgoingbk, I couldn't have said it better myself. That was good.

tag line: Pay back is a bitch. I became an Atheist.

boomSLANG said...

'Waiting for that link, Vynette. ' Waiting for that objective evidence for "God".

Anonymous said...

BoomSLANG -

Vynette's last post directed interested readers to her blog "Race Is Run," which I googled to find her proof of god. To read it, go to:

http://raceisrun.typepad.com/weblog/

It's about how she saw various signs and omen during a trip to Jerusalem, including a circular jet vapor trail that resembled a halo above the temple, which provided proof of god. There's a whole lot more, but that right there is enough to convince me - Seek and Ye Shall Find ... exactly what you've already decided to find before you even began the search.

boomSLANG said...

Thackerie---thanks for the heads-up on the link.

Well, of course I can symathize with any mother who loses a child. My own mother lost a son, and I a brother, back in '84. She(my mother) experienced similar "signs" of my bro's "presence", and was thoroughly convinced that it was a special "message from God", albeit, she's not nearly as religiously motivated as "Vynette".

As for the vapor "halo"--isn't it evident that it was a jet trail just by the fact that you can see where the flying vessel, whatever it was, entered/exited the circle at about the 9 o'clock postion? Furthermore, wouldn't a "God" make a perfect circle?

Look, for centuries, people have been "seeing God" in anywhere from bleeding statues--to a frickin' bag of Doritos. About an hour from where I'm from, people flock to see a reflection on a mirrored high-rise building that's shaped like the "Virgin Mary". Of course it's an illusion, because it disappears depending on how the sun's light hit's the building. But you can't convince the believer of that, nonetheless. Notwithstanding, I think Vynette, herself, summed it up pretty good:

"Was it merely symptomatic of a grieving mother desperately seeking comfort and answers?"

Steven Bently said...

Yeah thanks Thack, for the link.

Thanks Vynette, that took alot of Balls! You were correct that your evidence would not convence us, I'm wondering who would be convenced, except people that want so much to believe.

To be this so super-naive, reminds me of when I was just a little boy, to live in wonderment created by my own imagination!

When people go to the Holy Land, they are expecting and are looking for that "Miracle or a Divine Message (intervention) from Above!"

To preface us with Abraham and his orders to offer his only son as a test to Abes loyalty to God and then to be suddenly intervened by an Angel from God, then to complete the appeasement to God, Abe happens upon a goat caught in the briars just so he can sacrifice a burnt offering to this God, I mean this story alone, How outlandish!!!

Then beforehand knowing that you were going to and planning to visit the Holy Land, you went with the pre-supposition of a spiritual experience, plus a Healthy dose of Jet-lag.

The Halo seems to have been created by a Jet aircraft, I wonder if Jesus or Mohammad was piloting the aircraft, if that was a no-fly zone, I wonder if the pilot was not turned back at the last moment, I cannot connect it with a miracle.

The red string miracle and ring is grasping for straws, the reason I say this is because you just happen to bring along a ball of red yarn from Australia, were you planning on knitting a red sweater while in Jerusalem? I am familar with the Red String of Kaballah.

Please consider this, anything unknown or a miracle or divine intervention can be construed with any object in any situation to satisfy the imagination of the believer.

Another part of the problem as well with all of the Holy Land tours, we the naive, have been primed to believe that the Holy Land holds a veil of spiritual mysticism, I've heard this all my life. I think if everyone really believed this, then we here in USA would go over and capture this precious land and let just the Christians go there to touch all the prayer walls and burial grounds.

I mean if this is (the) Holy Ground, the beginning of all mankind and divine intervention, then this would be assigned the capital of the entire world, for all humanity, there would be no dispute over who owned the land and area and different denominations and beliefs and wars.

Vynette in my summation, the Holy Land is all bunk and I'm sorry that you wasted your money and time for such a unique hoax. TC

Anonymous said...

Isaac Newton believed the Bible but he was a moron , right ? Christians who experience miracles should just shuddup & let others sleep the sleep of death . Daniel was told in advance that 490 years using the prophetic device of a dAY FOR A YEAR would elapse between Cyrus' decree and the dying Messiah in Dan 9: 24-27. This turned out to be dead accurate but a lucky guess OK? but if we keep quiet the rocks wouldnt

Anonymous said...

Isaac Newton believed the Bible but he was a moron , right ? Christians who experience miracles should just shuddup & let others sleep the sleep of death . Daniel was told in advance that 490 years using the prophetic device of a dAY FOR A YEAR would elapse between Cyrus' decree and the dying Messiah in Dan 9: 24-27. This turned out to be dead accurate but a lucky guess OK? but if we keep quiet the rocks wouldnt

Anonymous said...

Ken Hood: "Isaac Newton believed the Bible but he was a moron , right?"

Ted Haggard has sexual affairs using his power and influence, but he was a christian... right?

webmdave said...

Ken,

Have you read anything on the life of Issac Newton? Or, have you even watched one documentary on this man's life?

Newton was an Arian. He did not believe in the Trinity. He also believed the Bible contained hidden coded messages. No fundamentalist church in existence today would have called him a True Christian™.

Don't believe me? Here's a link to get you started: click here.

In the future, before you parrot cute little apologetic tid-bits you've heard from the pulpit, it might be a good idea to do some personal research and make sure you have all the facts.

Anonymous said...

"God has a plan..."

...as the planet killing asteroid the size of Montana comes hurtling towards us, I can hear the fervent prayers, "God, OK, time to reveal your plan......God?.....hello?....
anytime God....about now would be a good time to put that plan into effect....ummmm, God? BOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM....... silence......

Anonymous said...

"God has a plan..."

...as the planet killing asteroid the size of Montana comes hurtling towards us, I can hear the fervent prayers, "God, OK, time to reveal your plan......God?.....hello?....
anytime God....about now would be a good time to put that plan into effect....ummmm, God? BOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM....... silence......

steamboat_willey said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
steamboat_willey said...

Bentley:

You properly observed that Ezekiel 28 was a taunt against the King of Tyre. It refers to him as "a man" twice in verses 1 through 10, and talks about human trade, riches, treasuries and such.

The King of Tyre was just trying to be like God. He said, "I sit in the seat of the gods, in the heart of the seas." [That's very interesting, by the way. In what sense is the 'heart of the seas' the location of God or gods? I have been engaging on that subject in other threads with fundie trolls, and they invariably give up the fight.]

Ezekiel 28 does not mention Satan, or Lucifer. It places the king of Tyre in Eden, but not as a serpent. He is there as a jewel-studded cherub. Also, he was not cast from heaven, but from the "mountain of God," the center of Canaanite nature religion.

All of these aspects of the taunt reveal that it is merely a Zoroastrian allegory, making Tyre the "chosen one of God," a term used in other places for the most powerful king on earth. Since Yahweh was assumed to be in charge of all human history, there was no way for the King of Tyre to have his power, except to be chosen by Yahweh to serve a purpose. Yahweh was going to humiliate him for claiming to be anything more than a man.

Attempts to turn this taunt against the King of Tyre into a description of Satan, as a fallen angel, are totally anachronistic. That kind of angelology and dualism were not part of the Hebrew conception, but came in with the New Testament.

Pageviews this week: