God's Defense Strategy

Posted By: jcl

God's Defense Strategy - 01/03/07 13:44

Thanks to the Iraq judiciary, 2007 begins with one dictator less in the world. But what will happen when the world's last dictator is to be eliminated? Consider the following hypothetical case:

A sort of super-police has finally hunted down the last dictator, and is dragging a bearded and unkempt God out of a spider-hole where he hid the last 250 years. Now God is brought before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, under charge of mass murder committed in 1755.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1755_Lisbon_earthquake

Just as with Saddam, the prosecution is concentrating on this particular case at first, and intends to deal with other crimes later. As God claims omnipotence, he will be held responsible for natural disasters, death, pain, and suffering happening in the world, and thus especially for the 1755 earthquake of Lisboa that killed 60,000.

The court will judge according to international law. God has hired the lawyer of O.J.Simpson for his defense. Now they are discussing on which arguments they could build their strategy:

1. Not guilty because I didn't do it.

2. Although I did do it, it was justified for the following reason: (...).

3. This court is not competent and its laws do not apply (Saddam's defense).

4. Not guilty due to insanity.

5. Not guilty due to statute of limitations.

6. I have created life and thus can also take it away whenever I feel like to.

7. Some other defense I didn't think about...

I'm just curious and am forwarding this question to Christian fundamentalists - what would be God's best defense strategy in such a case?

Posted By: ello

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/03/07 14:13

i guess he would turn into a flame , burn down all those unholy halfmonkeys, send them down to hell and fly away thru the next window by turning into a white pigeon...

well, i am very interested in the avalanche(?) which will roll down upon this thread

Posted By: Inestical

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/03/07 14:58

God would use the 6. startegy. He IS creator of us, and now when he is taken to the court, he'd succefully annihilate the jury and place in angels, who naturally are against any sues. This way, O.J.Simpson and God win the court.

Tho they can also refer to the 4. Not quilty due to insanity and 7. Not quilty due to 42

Posted By: broozar

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/03/07 17:12

1 and 3

Posted By: LarryLaffer

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/03/07 21:02

2. He does kill a lot of people, but being a god and all, he needs to seperate the fit from the weak by dealing out pain and death every so often. It does help evolve humanity in the long run, so the court might cut him some slack..

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/03/07 22:53

7. He pleads guilty, he believes he is God afterall and he would be convinced that a lethal injection won't harm him.

Cheers

Posted By: NITRO777

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/03/07 23:07

Although I agree with the reason 1 and 3 answer, from what I have noticed about humanity I would thoroughly understand answer number 2. And the reasons I would provide would probably be starting with: "Because of posts like this made by people like you."

If I was God, I could see destroying thousands in an earthquake just for rebellion and wickedness. I personally wonder why God hasn't destroyed us and this rotten planet thousands of years ago, but that is from some wisdom which I don't naturally possess.

Also even as a Christian I would slightly disagree with reason 3. The reason is because in many ways God indeed is bound by the rules of "Divine Justice" and would have to answer for evil just like the rest of us. Just because He is God does not exempt him from Justice. Even if Justice is something He created(which is in itself debatable) He would still have to be bound by those laws or else He would be hypocritical.

But history should have made it clear that our courts are indeed incompetent. The OJ case being solid proof of it.

However, the question itself is an absurd fantasy, because even if you didn't believe in the Christian God, it would still be ridiculous to think that He would be on trial from us mere humans. Because even if you didnt believe in God, just by formulating the question you would have to have accepted the Biblical descriptions of God and in those descriptions there is definitely no indication that He will ever be on trial by us at any time.

If you were to have understood the Bible at all you might realize that in a real sense God already did stand trial before Divine Justice, only it was not to protect Himself from accusations, but rather to offer Himself up for a propitiation for humanity's offenses. He did that in the form of Jesus Christ.

Quote:

7. He pleads guilty, he believes he is God afterall and he would be convinced that a lethal injection won't harm him.

Heh heh

Posted By: jcl

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/04/07 07:00

Hmm, on closer consideration I suspect that some of the suggested defense strategies aren't going to work. Especially since God and his lawyer learned to their dismay that the prosecution intends to present a thick evidence folder, called 'the bible' and containing witness accounts of many of God's crimes or complicity in crimes.

(1) - the O.J.Simpson Strategy ("I didn't do it") - probably will fail here. The bible evidence shows clearly that God repeatedly boasted about his absolute power and authority over men's lives, and did not hesitate to use this power for genocide, instigation of mass murder, and other purposes that are criminal by today's standards.

(3) - the Saddam Strategy ("this court has no power over me") won't work because international law gives the ICC power of judgment over all crimes against humanity that were referred to it by the UN security council. The UN SC routinely refers all cases of mass murder when they are not handled by a national court and the perp is not a US soldier. God's claim to be a US soldier would obviously fail, so his acts fall under the jurisdiction of the court.

(6) - claiming that he who gives life can also take it - won't work either. If a mother kills her child after having given birth, she'll be prosecuted. National and international law gives everyone the right to keep his own life regardless of who gave it to him. Do not forget that this was not a "deal", as you weren't asked whether you want life or not.

Quote:

If I was God, I could see destroying thousands in an earthquake just for rebellion and wickedness. I personally wonder why God hasn't destroyed us and this rotten planet thousands of years ago,

Maybe a successful defense strategy might be (2) - admitting the crime but excusing it with some particular reasons. However, it won't help a perp to claim that he killed people just "for rebellion and wickedness". Saddam also killed people for rebellion, but this didn't save him from the gallows. Besides, Portugal was one of the most devout Christian countries in 1755. The earthquake killed mostly Christians and destroyed all churches and religious institutions, while secular buildings sometimes were unharmed. Thus, I have the impression that maybe the Book of Job could give a hint of the perp's motives in this case.

BTW - God does not have to fear a lethal injection. The maximum penalty he has to face is life imprisonment. Most civilized nations have long ago abandoned the death penalty.

Posted By: broozar

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/04/07 10:57

Quote:

(1) - the O.J.Simpson Strategy ("I didn't do it") - probably will fail here. The bible evidence shows clearly that God repeatedly boasted about his absolute power and authority over men's lives, and did not hesitate to use this power for genocide, instigation of mass murder, and other purposes that are criminal by today's standards.

god could say that the bible is a book written by man and therefor full of mistakes, he could go for libel and slander, so (1)'s still possible.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/04/07 11:32

Quote:

God does not have to fear a lethal injection. The maximum penalty he has to face is life imprisonment. Most civilized nations have long ago abandoned the death penalty.

True, but there's a slight problem that only applies to God. You see, unless he dies (imposter or not), there's no guarantee that he can't or won't commit such a crime again, even while in prison. I assume he thinks to be immortal, so what's the point of life imprisonment for him? A couple of hundred years (which is nothing for an immortal being) or perhaps one natural disaster and he's free. By the way, isn't 'life' imprisonment usually something up to about 25 years?

I think theoretically speaking the 'real' God wouldn't want to be caught, since again theoretically it could turn him into a slave of mankind, (off course granted we could actually catch him in the first place)

Edit: Problem number 2 by the way:

Quote:

[...] unlike the Democratic Republic of Congo, has not signed the ICC statute, which in any case does not cover crimes committed before the court came into existence. So any sort of international trial for the Ba'athist dictator and his henchmen, as many would have liked to see, would have had to involve setting up yet another ad hoc body.

I feel rules are going to bend anyways if the International Criminal Court in The Hague is going to put God to trial, more or less regardsless of the maximum penalty.

Cheers

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/04/07 20:50

Quote:

So if someone borrows you a car to drive with and takes it away from you after a time you hardly can demand death penalty for that.

Well maybe not a death penalty, but that depends on the brand of the car.

(By the way, there's no 'borrow life from God' agreement, so it's fundamentally different.)

Cheers

Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/05/07 20:52

Quote:

If you go from the content of the bible god didnt kill anyone.
According to the bible the body itself is just a hull...
cheers

If so, I wonder why the Bible tell also " Dont' kill "

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/09/07 18:59

Quote:

I'm just curious and am forwarding this question to Christian fundamentalists - what would be God's best defense strategy in such a case?

Did I hear "fundamentalist"?!

This is a good question. Although I resent the blasphemous premise of the post, I think I can give an interesting answer. I don't know if its right, I'm still pretty ignorant about Christianity myself, but let's see what I can do.

So, starting at the point that God is in court, I'd assume He would represent Himself. Can't count on us fallen apes to make the case

...However, God wouldn't need to break a sweat, if He were to take this avenue. Just expose the jury (or for that matter the entire courtroom) to a split second of the shame their sin brings upon themselves, the same shame normally reserved for hell, and that'll put them on His side real quick.

After that, He'll just explain that He has actually been pretty nice and benevolent towards us this whole time. Instead of completely letting our sin seperate us from Him in this life, and letting the worst chaos one could possibly imagine take place, He has prevented the full force of the consequences of our sin from hitting us, and actually we should be thankful.

We should also be thankful that He doesn't have an enabling personality that completely shields us from the pain and suffering our sin causes in the world, and would (in the end) allow us to make things worse for ourselves (especially with respect to our after-life).

That's just my two cents. I'm sure there are more thorough, and accurate answers to this objection out there since its been around for some time.

edit:

Quote:

Thanks to the Iraq judiciary, 2007 begins with one dictator less in the world.

I was surprised when I heard that, by the by. I guess I'm not too up on current events, because it totally caught me off guard when the news reached me. I actually felt pretty sad about it. Not that Saddam was a good guy or anything, but it still sucks.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/09/07 19:17

Quote:

He has prevented the full force of the consequences of our sin from hitting us, and actually we should be thankful.

I don't quite understand this line, because a.) we should take responsibility for our own sins and most of the time people will regret them anyways (= hence they will feel the full consequences of their sins) �nd b.) w� are the ones ignoring or 'hiding' our sins, there's no intervention of God needed for that.

Infact, these kind of ideological points of view make religious people hide behind the bible if they've done something wrong. Together with the whole 'confession' thing in churches. Some might not understand my point of view, but I actually think confessing in all anonimity is a bad thing, because it doesn't solve or change anything. Confessing publically would be better, th�t's when you take full responsibility for your sins. Confession is something strange anyways, since you can sort of wave away your sins, anyways I'm going off topic I guess.

Quote:

I actually felt pretty sad about it. Not that Saddam was a good guy or anything, but it still sucks.

A lifelong detention would have been way better. But then again I'm against the deathpenalty no matter what. (too much innocent people got that penalty in the past, not that Saddam is innocent off course.)

Cheers

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/10/07 22:19

Quote:

Honestly if one of my creations turn out as bad as we did, I would destroy it.

Okey, but what if we are exactly the way this 'God' wanted us to be?

I do not believe in God at all, but the most common reply to thoughts like yours is either 'God has a plan and that's the way it's going to be' or 'God probably wanted it to happen like this'. Those aren't even arguments off course, nor can we ever prove them and you could say similar things about practically anything.

But still if there's a being that's almighty and stuff, it would definately have predicted how we were going to turn out. Still, it makes me wonder about God's nature and 'alignment'.

Cheers

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/10/07 23:39

Quote:

I don't quite understand this line, because a.) we should take responsibility for our own sins and most of the time people will regret them anyways (= hence they will feel the full consequences of their sins) �nd b.) w� are the ones ignoring or 'hiding' our sins, there's no intervention of God needed for that.

Infact, these kind of ideological points of view make religious people hide behind the bible if they've done something wrong. Together with the whole 'confession' thing in churches. Some might not understand my point of view, but I actually think confessing in all anonimity is a bad thing, because it doesn't solve or change anything. Confessing publically would be better, th�t's when you take full responsibility for your sins. Confession is something strange anyways, since you can sort of wave away your sins, anyways I'm going off topic I guess.

I don't think I was communicating very clearly here.

I was referring to the suffering of this world being a consequence of sin. What I'm saying is that God might be preventing it from becoming worse than it is right now, even if we justly deserve otherwise.

I guess, confession is kind of unrelated to what I meant, but I'll refrain from commenting further on that because I'm not very fond of catholicism.

Quote:

I don't quite understand this line, because a.) we should take responsibility for our own sins and most of the time people will regret them anyways (= hence they will feel the full consequences of their sins) �nd b.) w� are the ones ignoring or 'hiding' our sins, there's no intervention of God needed for that.

Infact, these kind of ideological points of view make religious people hide behind the bible if they've done something wrong. Together with the whole 'confession' thing in churches. Some might not understand my point of view, but I actually think confessing in all anonimity is a bad thing, because it doesn't solve or change anything. Confessing publically would be better, th�t's when you take full responsibility for your sins. Confession is something strange anyways, since you can sort of wave away your sins, anyways I'm going off topic I guess.

Well...in a case like this where the guilt is clear cut, and people like him need to made an example of, I think the death penalty is justified. I don't like it, but I can't really say that it was the wrong thing to do.

Quote:

However I am not sure that I understand the "I have actually been pretty nice and benevolent" defense. Does this mean that God takes responsibility for the killing, but considers it nice and benevolent? And what exactly are those "sins" that would justify mass murder? As the ICC is located in Europe, the judges are not likely to be impressed by justifying killing with religious reasons.

Let me try and state it another way (similar to how I put it above). Let's say that disasters, suffering, disease, death and so forth are a consequence of our sins. If so, they're all basically our fault when you break it down. Now there are two possibilities, perhaps more. One, God doesn't directly cause the disasters, but allows them to happen because we rebel against Him. Or, He does purposely cause the disasters, but with the (ultimately benevolent) intention of allowing us to understand what our sin does to us. That would be benevolent in the sense that allowing us to simply destroy our eternal souls is worse in the long run; letting us taste a bit of suffering in order to understand the greater good is for the best (similar to allowing your child to suffer through a vaccination because...well you know why). In other words, the destruction in this world serves as a powerful reminder of the destruction reserved for unrepentant people so that ultimately they might know that they need to be saved.

Based on what I've been studying lately in the bible, it seems to be the former rather than the latter. I could be wrong, and I'd be willing to admit as much but it seems more like God gives His blessing for those who don't 'turn away' from Him, and then simply allows suffering when people don't take the much more obvious good path, if you will.

Quote:

Okey, but what if we are exactly the way this 'God' wanted us to be?

Then we can be pretty sure that it wouldn't be the Judeo-Christian God.

Quote:

'God has a plan and that's the way it's going to be'

I think that's kind of a shallow answer. I hope I've provided, for better or worse, an answer that has a bit more depth to it.

I think God does use bad things for the greater good, but that sort of an answer used to explain the origin of suffering kind of takes sin (and our responsibility) out of the picture and just makes it seem like its in God's nature to make us suffer.

Quote:

But still if there's a being that's almighty and stuff, it would definately have predicted how we were going to turn out.

Yeah, that's the interesting part. God, by His nature, would have had to of known about the fall, sin, and whatnot ahead of time. Yet decided to go ahead anyway. There's a lot of discussion on this in the christian community, which is something I've been meaning to catch up on.

Posted By: NITRO777

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/11/07 02:07

Quote:

However I am not sure that I understand the "I have actually been pretty nice and benevolent" defense. Does this mean that God takes responsibility for the killing, but considers it nice and benevolent? And what exactly are those "sins" that would justify mass murder?

This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between killing and murder, I have also noticed the common use of the two words as synonyms among people who generally are adverse to the use of Capital Punishment. Basically this line of reasoning seeks to equate killing with murder which is undoubtedly not the case. Taken to a different context this reasoning also seems to equate terrorism with the distinct purpose of killing innocents (which is murder) as opposed to targeting a hostile group with the incedental death of innocents( which would be more properly termed "killing" rather than murder.) The fundamental difference lies in the motivations behind the killer.

The earthquake which killed 60,000 or the recent tsunami which killed even more
are really very inconsequential considering the 150,000 plus people who die each day through deaths of varying kinds. The only reason why those types of concentrated events capture out attention is the sheer defined focal point of death all in one physical location of geography.

Quote:

But still if there's a being that's almighty and stuff, it would definately have predicted how we were going to turn out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, that's the interesting part. God, by His nature, would have had to of known about the fall, sin, and whatnot ahead of time. Yet decided to go ahead anyway. There's a lot of discussion on this in the christian community, which is something I've been meaning to catch up on.

I think the reason could be that God has limits, self-imposed limits which cause Him to act towards driving certain things from His Mind. For example in Hebrews 10:17 He states that :" ...and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more."

The fact that He chooses not to remember sins(after they are repented of) does not mean that He is just a very forgetful Being who cannot seem to remember things correctly. When He says that He will not remember them it means that He drives them away from His consciousness, by force of Will He drives the rememberence of them away. If He has now no recollection of our sins then He would logically have had no premonition of them. I would think it would be impossible to have a premonition of something that you would someday purposefully forget.

Quote:

God, by His nature, would have had to of known about the fall, sin, and whatnot ahead of time

I am not of the opinion that we can nail down exactly how or what God would know ahead of time,because as an eternal being, He had no beginning and there is therefore technically no such thing as "ahead of time". As an eternal being with no beginning or end, He would have already experienced the dawn and dusk of humanity before it even happened AND he would also be presently living in each moment.

Certainly there are aspects of time that He would have access to, but since HE has everlasting hope and faith(which are both time dependent virtues), He probably would not choose to know. Or perhaps His faith is actually stronger than what the future reality would be anyway. I am getting pretty deep in thought here so I will come up to the surface for air and use an example:

"Suppose we have generic man named John Doe. On the one hand God knows by premonition that John Doe will eventually be a rotten, terrible person who will worship the devil, die and go to hell.

But then suppose God's hope for John Doe is so strong and His faith for John Doe is so strong that it overides the reality of John Doe's predicted future and John Doe becomes a wonderful Christian who drives the Church bus to picnics on Sunday."

This scenario is very possible given that time and events themselves are subject to the material universe, and God Himself supercedes the material universe.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/11/07 02:46

Some interesting explanations there Nitro.

Quote:

This scenario is very possible given that time and events themselves are subject to the material universe, and God Himself supercedes the material universe.

If God is time-less and supercedes the material universe, then would he have influence on multi-dimensional universes? If there's no dimension in which God's influence is visible, then how can we know he exists? It's either 'We can't' or 'he doesn't exist'.

I still can't quite comprehend why something that's totally 'out' of our world can become known about in the first place. Now you might start about Jesus, but that's 2000+ years ago and there's no proof that all the things that are said to have happened, happened.

Besides the fact that there's no such thing as a birth without a father (trust me, this is easy to proof, only requires some time), nor do I personally believe Jesus was God's son and performed all those miracles and speeches, something the bible claims but doesn't proof.

The problem lies in the fact that these kind of things require development and since we all know that 'the Bible' consists of many different books and writings, I can't stop thinking it can never be accurate or unchanged from it's 'original content', whatever that may have been.

Especially when it's in the human nature to exagerate wonderful, powerful or seemingly meaningful things, texts like in the Bible loose their credibility. Like I've mentioned before, in Asian religious literature 'exagerations' like we find in the bible, are all over the place in texts. People turning into Mythic creatures, stories about Gods who came to earth, Kings with thousands of castles, flying horses, things like that. Why o why give so much more credibility to the Bible than to those texts? For me it's quite clear that water can't be turned into wine just by snapping some fingers, just like flying horses and dragons did not ever exist.

Cheers

Posted By: NITRO777

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/11/07 21:46

Quote:

So the question is whether God had a 'just cause' for his killings. It not, it was murder, it's as simple as that. If he just says: "They died because of their disobedience to me", then he must also explain why the court should show more mercy to him than to a Hitler or Saddam who killed people for the same reason.

Saddam and Hitler denied their victims of the one supreme human quality, namely choice. By stripping their victims from their choice love is turned into rape, and capital punishment is turned into murder. Hitler never allowed his victims to repent and even if he did there would be nothing to repent from for how does someone repent from being a Jew? Or how does someone say sorry about being a Kurd? Hitler and Saddam were not chosen by the people, perhaps they had their own nations under fearful subjection, but they tried to rob other nations of choice and therefore liberty. Choice = Liberty.

God has given everyone the freedom of choice, and He has no desire to see anyone choose death for themselves, but He has given us all the opportunity to choose life and death. I personally cannot fathom why anyone would choose death, but it happens probably out of ignorance.

Going back to the question of "just cause", I dont believe anyone born on earth is truly innocent. We are a flawed, tainted species which will undoubtedly destroy ourselves eventually with or without God's judgemental intervention. The fact that we can be "born again" and therefore recycled is the greatest hope of humanity.

All other religions, cults, psychologies, and self-help programs offer only improvement upon our old selves. Christianity offers a completely new "model" of psyche for replacement.

So it would not have mattered one bit if a Christian had died in the earthquake because a Christian has an immortal soul which makes death meaningless for him. Therefore you should perhaps adjust the high court proceedings with a new docket of evidence, namely "exhibit A" which would contain all the names of all the Christians who seemingly perished in the quake. Those numbers would have to be subtracted from the total deathcount.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/11/07 23:10

Saddam and Hitler did give a choice, quite literally, you were either against or with them. I think considering the privileges Christianity seems to offer (wether or not those privileges must be 'earned' is irrelevant, it's about the socalled 'choice'), it's really not th�t different. (remember that non-believers are generally thought to go to hell no matter what).

I think God would have a relatively hard time to justify his actions. Because I'm sure �ven those Christians who died in that earthquake did not choose to die like that or f�r whatever reason God would state. I'd say it's murder indeed, instead of killings. If infact God was the force who set the earthquake in motion, then God was like a finger pulling the trigger of a gun. Motive would be secondary of importance, there's no 'acted out of self-defense' argument when it comes to devasting disasters like earthquakes if you ask me.
Just like we can't morally justify setting off a nuclear bomb 'out of self-defense' or 'precaution'.

(More or less OT:)
Yes, eventhough the bible says nothing about our soul being immortal yes or no, but okey, if that's what 'Christian fundamentalists' believe. (I guess all christians believe this, right?)

Quote:

We are a flawed

Perhaps, but who is the only one who can do something about that?

A little hint: not God.

Personally I would definately see humans like Stalin or Saddam or Hitler as 'flawed' persons, no doubt about that. Still, since humanity seems to have a hard time learning from it's past, I don't really see how rebirth of our souls is our only hope. The problem is there are so many of us, so many of us could screw up (again?). There's seemingly no process of selection of any kind, otherwise one could argue that 2000 years would be more than enough to recycle souls and result in a better humanity as a whole.

Cheers

Posted By: NITRO777

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/12/07 00:05

Quote:

Perhaps, but who is the only one who can do something about that?

Obviously we haven't done anything yet, although I admire your hopeful optimism I am too much a profound skeptic of human nature to agree. I certainly dont see anything in history which makes even a small resistance against the massive force of man's self-destruction.

Quote:

There's seemingly no process of selection of any kind, otherwise one could argue that 2000 years would be more than enough to recycle souls and result in a better humanity as a whole.

Its not a better humanity, its a replaced humanity. With the advent of Christ 2000 years ago there is now two seperate species of humanity on earth. This is why Christ referred to Himself as the Son of God, and the "first begotten from the dead". The reason why this "new creation" has not affected the earth in the way you would expect is because it (the Christian Purpose) is not directed to interfere with the continuum of "old Adamic's creation" downward spiral. Christ's Kingdom was always, and always shall be a subtle, non-physical Kingdom. We, as the body of Christ, do not stand to inherit this earth, but are promised a new heaven and earth. So obviously our purposes(as directed by God) would not stand in the way. There are indeed great changes we make through our efforts down through history, but none of those changes will ever become an obstacle to mankind's apocalyptic finale. God has already judged Adam with death from the garden, the strength of that condemnation is impervious,inevitable and irreconcilably resolute, so much so that the earth quakes, hurricane's rage, famine spreads, floods overcome, waves sweep, men war with each other, radiation seeps through the ozone and thousands die every day. There is no way that the course of such events will ever turn, because they are linked by the eternal counsels of the Godhead.

Posted By: Matt_Aufderheide

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/12/07 09:19

Quote:

The earthquake which killed 60,000 or the recent tsunami which killed even more are really very inconsequential considering the 150,000 plus people who die each day through deaths of varying kinds. The only reason why those types of concentrated events capture out attention is the sheer defined focal point of death all in one physical location of geography.

By this reasoning i could go kill a million poeple all over the world, some in each town, and no one would care...

Posted By: jcl

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/12/07 10:15

Quote:

God has given everyone the freedom of choice

This claim won't convince the jury either, as he has obviously given none of his 60,000 victims any choice.

Even if he had given them a choice, it wouldn't help his defense much. Saddams victims also had the choice to rebel against him or not. He only killed those who rebelled, and their families, and the other people in their villages. Saddam's case has in fact many similarities to God's case, except for the number of the victims that let Saddam look like an amateur in comparison, and for the fact that Saddam gave more choices.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/12/07 23:09

Quote:

I must also mention, to avoid misunderstandings, that this God before the ICC is not the Christian god. The usual Christian god, as believed by the majority of Christians, has not inflicted death upon Adam nor allowed the earth quake of Lisboa. He has not directly created man and has no direct influence on earth, so he's not responsible for natural death and disasters. Thus you can't catch him red-handed and drag him before a court.

Who said God did, or was responsible for, any of those things?

Quote:

However the God before the ICC is the US-fundamentalist God. As I've learned, fundamentalists believe their God has inflicted death and suffering as a revenge for Adam's disobedience, called the original "sin". Maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong here. As the fundamentalist God can cause or prevent disasters at will, the question the court has to decide is not whether God is responsible or not. The question is indeed, as Nitro pointed out, whether the killing was murder or not.

As far as I see it, the deistic liberal version of God is even worse! He created the universe in such a way that it would be designed for suffering. That kind of sucks.

Posted By: NITRO777

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/13/07 16:44

Quote:

Only US fundamentalists still believe that their God, just as Saddam, personally inflicted death and suffering as retaliation for disobedience. See:

I dont want to jar your thinking about US fundamentalist Christians that much, but just for the sake of clarity I think you should understand that you are probably grossly compartmentalizing this type of Christian belief in assigning it almost exclusively to US Christians.

One of your own countryman, Reinhart Bonnke, (always a hero of mine), is personally responsible for millions upon millions of Africans believing in the same Christian belief as US fundamentalists. Reinhard himself is not politically active at all, but his beliefs in literal Creation, personal God, fall of man, original sin, etc., are exactly like US fundamentalists. He has been holding these crusades ever since I can remember, probably before I was born. I encourage you to take a look at some of the photos on his website which show some of the largest public meetings in the history of Africa. I am not exagerrating when I say that millions have come to Christ because of his efforts. He is a German born and raised evangelist.

REINHART BONNKE

It is true, however, that his ministry receives millions of dollars from US Christians though.

Dr. Yonnggi Cho has the largest, I repeat, the largest church in history in South Korea, his church has 760,000 members, all of them believing in the same literal interpretation of the Bible.
Dr. Cho's church

These two examples are just from my particular denomination, which happens to be charismatic. There might be more Baptists then any other Christian denomination.

The numbers of Christians in China are startling, and is reported to be slowly changing the culture of the nation from within. This one article estimates 30 million Chinese Protestants.
Chiinese Christians

I would also add Mark Swiger because I know him personally, and he is from my hometown, he has reached thousands upon thousands in India, I have seen the video's and photos, I have seen the lines of people, the numbers of committment cards. Swiger

This is just a casual perusal of a few ministries out there which are leading people to Christ and teaching followers about special creation, the fall of man, and a personal God, the list really does go on and on.

I think the Christians you are describing are probably Catholic diests, while it is true that there are a lot of them out there, especially in Europe and other so called civilized countries.

protestant vs catholic

It is evidenced that the poor and oppressed have always embraced Christianity as it is taught in the US, it only seems to be the most priveledged socialistic countries such as France and Germany which maintain a theistic, uninvolved God. That is ironic because all of these spoiled intellectuals who theorize about the nature and causes of suffering and death happen to be the furthest removed from it.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/13/07 16:56

The vast amount of 'Christians' in China isn't suprising at all, because China used to have regimes which oppressed all religions (except the 'state religion').

Quote:

That is ironic because all of these spoiled intellectuals who theorize about the nature and causes of suffering and death happen to be the furthest removed from it.

Or does this infact proof that having (unconditional) faith in a religion is often the result of fear?

Cheers

Posted By: NITRO777

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/13/07 17:07

Quote:

Or does this infact proof that having (unconditional) faith in a religion is often the result of fear?

I wont disagree with that at all. There is a lot to be afraid of in this world. Whenever I hear someone talk about how brave they are I instantly know that they are lying. It is the priveledged few sitting in their coffeehouses behind the safety of comfort and four walls which claim that they are brave.

Posted By: jcl

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/13/07 17:07

Quote:

I think the Christians you are describing are probably Catholic diests

I was describing Protestants, but I suppose the disbelief in a literal-biblical God is shared by most Catholics as well. I also agree that thinking about the religious implications of death and suffering might naturally lead to moving away from such a God. Some have already finished those thought processes, others are a little slower.

However this is unrelated to the ICC trial of the fundamentalist God, which begins to look quite bad for Him.

Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/13/07 18:55

Quote:

The usual Christian god, as believed by the majority of Christians, has not inflicted death upon Adam nor allowed the earth quake of Lisboa. He has not directly created man and has no direct influence on earth, so he's not responsible for natural death and disasters.
However the God before the ICC is the US-fundamentalist God. As I've learned, fundamentalists believe their God has inflicted death and suffering as a revenge for Adam's disobedience, called the original "sin".

In my opinion there is not such alternative
Either God exist or He doesn't
In this thread we assume that it exists, well in this case we must also assume that He is the US - fundamentalist God
It is out of discussion that suffering are supposed to be a consequence of the original sin
You might be horrified about such claim ( same as me ) but you can not call yourself a Christian ( either Catholic or protestant) if you dont' beleive in it
It is clearly written in the bible and in the Gospel
The only reasonable God's defense is the following

If you put me on trial for Lisboa's earthquake why not also for Cancer and other terrible and painful deseases ?
You committed the original sin so you must pay for it in a way or an other

Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/14/07 11:29

Quote:

Most Christians in my country would consider it a blasphemy to take the bible literally and believe that God is a killer.

.

In my opinion people can acceopt Bible or refuse it but they are not allowed to twist Bible to match their own taste
You can not deny that our sufferings depend on the original sin
This is clearly written in the bible it is not definitly a matter of interpretation
Obviously the story of the "Apple" must not be understood literaly

Posted By: NITRO777

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/14/07 13:48

Quote:

Most Christians in my country would consider it a blasphemy to take the bible literally and believe that God is a killer.

From what I read about Germany, the main percentage of Protestants are Lutherans:

Quote:

But the facts, apart from surveys, tell a different story. By far most people belong to a religious organization. In 1989, the year before the unification with East Germany, 82.77 percent of the West German population belonged either to the Catholic or the Lutheran Church, 3 percent were Muslim, and a few percent where members of other groups. By far most people still have their children baptized, marry religiously, and pay their church taxes. The main difference between German and American religiosity seems to be that for Germans religiosity is more of a private matter, something that is not shown or spoken about publicly. Some people I have spoken with even deny that they are religious, even though they go sometimes to church and pay their church tax.

source of previous quote

Its important to understand that both the Catholic church AND the German Protestant Churches(Lutherans) are mere shells of the denominations they began as. Martin Luther would turn over in his grave if he were to witness the degradation of his belief system which is evidenced in today's Lutheran churches. Both of these European churches did definitely believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible when they were founded whereas the American churches have preserved the original teachings of the Bible which have lasted since the Protestant reformation.

In one blurb from the Wikipedia on the Evangelical Church in Germany most Protestant Churches in Germany are either Lutheran or United(Which is a Lutheran derivative). I was amazed at the statement that

Quote:

The vast majority of German Protestants nevertheless belong to a member church of the EKD, about 32% of the overall German population

So I guess I was wrong about Germany being a cold, religionless place. There is certainly is a lot of religious people there. However, from my initial observations, the main Protestant doctrines there are far removed from their original foundational doctrines. I also would add that listing off a group of numbers and statistics for the purposes of debate is almost inhuman. There are undoubtedly a lot of good, wonderful people in Germany, as their are in America, Iraq, Russia, China or anywhere else. Of course, being good, and nice and friendly and polite are not in themselves reasons for enterance to heaven.

The interesting point about these protestants in Germany(as well as the same kind of Protestants in US or elsewhere) is that they are mostly good people, as are Catholics very good people. And they seem to hold on to a faith in God, however nebulous and impersonal of a God it seems to be. Likewise they seem to believe in a vague concept of heaven, of which it seems that enterance thereof can be attained by just doing good and helping your fellow man.

It is easy to see that, in the context of such a sketchy and half-hearted belief system, why the youth of Europe seem so ready to reject the entire concept of God. This concept of God, "the liberal God" which Irish_Farmer calls it seems completely irrelevant to real life, and the hardships which face us daily.

I would say that this "liberal God" would fare even worsely at your ICC trial because He had the power to stop suffering also, in that He was still all powerful, but instead He watched it like some type of sick voyeur or cold scientist using us as guinea pigs or rats in a maze.

At least the Biblical God, the God upon which all European protestant churches are based upon, was a personal God who set into motion a real plan of salvation from the disasters.

I am no expert of German religion though, I would very much like to speak to a German minister of both denominations, one Baptist and one Lutheran to really get a feel for whats going on there. But I suppose I can learn bits and peices by reading articles and listening to the people on here.

Posted By: NITRO777

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/14/07 16:18

Quote:

But still, no one has come forward yet with a good defense strategy for the struggling fundamentalist God.

Well this defense lawyer must rest my case, I think the jury is too tough.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/14/07 16:46

Quote:

In my opinion people can acceopt Bible or refuse it but they are not allowed to twist Bible to match their own taste
You can not deny that our sufferings depend on the original sin
This is clearly written in the bible it is not definitly a matter of interpretation
Obviously the story of the "Apple" must not be understood literaly

Uhm, aren't you doing exacly that now? It's not obvious that the 'apple' story must not be understood literally, eventhough most people will understand that there's more to the story. Many stories in the bible are open to a lot of different interpretations even when you don't wish to twist things around in favor of one certain view.

Still, I think the Jury will have a hard time judging a God.

Cheers

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/15/07 00:15

Quote:

Jesus Christ died on the cross because of our sins

Well the consensus is probably there when it comes to US Christian fundamentalists yes, but there are people who think it was a conspiracy of Jewish people who eventually killed Jesus. Part of this theory says Jesus was not the promised Messiah, so according to them he did not die because of 'our' sins. (Most Jews believe the 'real' Messiah has not yet come to earth or something along this line, and some 'Christians' believe this too.)

Infact, there are plenty of people who generally are called 'Christians' who do not believe in Christ himself. The latter is a bit of a European thing though and usually those people are not very fanatic, although some do really believe in God.

Quote:

Fair and honest people are very often mercy less people
Dont you agree ?

Is it fair to be honest? Is it honest to be fair? I'd say yes and yes. So what's wrong with being both? Nothing. You don't need mercy when you're fair, right? Wrong. If you are really fair and people deserve another chance, they will or should get it. Being honest or fair doesn't mean they are mercyless no matter what. Still, I do agree with you. People who seem to look fair and honest are often not. It's easy to misjudge people or be mislead and people tend to think that most people are really nice, eventhough most are selfish, unfair and dishonest.

Quote:

If He could prevent the earthquake from happening then He his responsible
If He could not then He is not God

True, but if he would have stopped the earthquake, how could we know he stopped it? If God is justice, then his reasoning is strange and full of illogic and cruelty. Somehow judging the events in this world, he can't or won't stop 'evil' (read: men or women or children doing horrible things to eachother.). What 'good' is a God that can't stop evil?

Perhaps in his defense he should simply proof that he had no other choice but to let the earthquake rummble and kill?

Cheers

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/15/07 02:32

JCL, the first clue that you should have ignored that link (about bible massacres) is that the website itself linked to the skeptic's annotated bible. The most intellectually lazy and irrelevant peice of information on the internet, and that's saying something.

If you want another view on the massacres, I'll reference any curious sorts here since these topics are too in depth to go into in one thread on one forum.

Its extremely telling that these massacres are referred to as 'holocausts' as if they can even be compared in any way whatsoever.

Quote:

I'm no expert in "liberal versions" of God, maybe there are many such versions. But modern Christians usually believe that God did not create the Universe and can not physically influence events on earth.

That's deism, not Christianity.

Why would a deistic god, considering its nature, send its son to earth to die for our sins?

Quote:

He's more an idea than a physical entity, and thus is not responsible for death and suffering.

Yes, which is why liberal christianity is a good breeding ground for new age philosophies tacked onto the bible.

Quote:

Only US fundamentalists still believe that their God, just as Hitler or Saddam, personally inflicted death and suffering as retaliation for disobedience. See:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/death_suffering.asp

The bible doesn't directly claim that God invented death, this belief is some fundamentalist specialty. However according to the bible God often incited others to murder and genocide, acted as an accomplice to murder, or committed mass murder himself.

Death is just a consequential result of our universe lacking in the full presence of God, for those who believe that argument. I'm kind of leaning in that direction, but I haven't completely decided yet.

Anyway, I'll just use that as my argument for now. In this case, and as AiG implies in their website (unless you can point out otherwise), God doesn't necessarily create death so much as He allows it to happen since He has partially removed His presence from the creation.

Argh...I had a lot more I wanted to say, but I have to go for now. I have to hang out with my friend (lame, I know), but I'll be back around later.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/15/07 16:39

OT:

Quote:

That's deism, not Christianity.

Why would a deistic god, considering its nature, send its son to earth to die for our sins?

Same goes for the 'Christian' God off course, why would he do such a thing? No pun intended. It's simply something I wonder, because when you think about it, it doesn't make much sense.

Cheers

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/16/07 09:18

Quote:

who says god "did it" wouldnt it be more like why didnt god stop it, and thats like saying you should convict the govenor of california if the fault broke and thousands of people died, cuz "he was in charge" thats what doesnt make much sense.

The more interesting question in my opinion would be wether or not God could infact stop such a thing, wether he wanted to or not left aside. Most religious people are confident God can do anything as long as there's reason to do so. (still there are some exceptions, because some seem to believe God is bound to (his own?) rules.)

Cheers

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/17/07 23:06

Quote:

As far as the justice system goes, and all those agenst the death penalty and think life is a much more suitable punishment, I would like to say that putting a person in a box, and locking him away from sociaty will not change his views/values. There for if he were to escape he would go right back and continue doing whatever it is that he did.

The only thing is, escape really isn't very likely in a case like Saddam's.

Anyway, I meant to write much much more. But suffice it to say that most conservative christians (for now including myself) would say that God doesn't inflict these things upon us, but allows them to happen. The 'chaos' of natural disasters and so forth is just a consequence of the lack of His presence.

Posted By: jcl

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/18/07 11:32

Quote:

The 'chaos' of natural disasters and so forth is just a consequence of the lack of His presence.

God's lack of presence is certainly something we can agree upon - welcome to Atheism. Maybe this could even hint how to defend Him?

Back in the courtroom, the prosecutor has meanwhile finished his speech. He demands a total of 58,259,125 years in prison for God: 25 years per count of each of the 60,000 killings in Lisboa plus the 2,270,365 killings God boasted about in the Old Testament. Due to God's support of terrorists, the prison term is to be spent in Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo.

God has meanwhile shaven, showered, and is wearing a cheap gray business suit that makes Him look like a harmless insurance agent. He's put on a suspiciously confident smirk. Could he have found a defense strategy after all? His lawyer carries a big stack of books before the judge and demands them to be registered as evidence for the defense. The tension in the court room reaches boiling point. The journalists on the press balcony almost break their necks to catch a glimpse on the book covers. What books might that be?

Posted By: JibbSmart

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/19/07 01:47

Quote:

God's lack of presence is certainly something we can agree upon - welcome to Atheism.

this "lack of presence", if interpreted correctly, is not limited to atheism. loads of atheists seem to think that Christians believe God to be responsible for all natural disasters. natural disasters are obviously just a natural process, events caused by reactions inside or around the earth. no one's to blame for them. God would not be held responsible for the deaths in the Lisboa earthquake. His "lack of presence" is merely His choice not to intervene. that was part of the condition of humanity's freewill and knowledge of good and evil, which we may not choose individually, but something i'm sure we would all choose under the same circumstances as Adam and Eve.

i dont know much about the Old Testament -- i focus on the New Testament because it replaces all laws from the Old, but i guess it's probably worth reading because many accusations against God are to do with the Old Testament. from stories i've heard, those who were killed commited huge sins against God, or were specifically instructed not to do certain things at pain of death (eg, touching the Arc of the Covenant). mass killings were of people who were firmly in the wrong religion, basically punishable by eternal damnation anyway, and all without significant enough Jewish influence to be saved except by divine intervention. often these killings would be preceeded by massive signs or miracles foretold by prophets, basically divine intervention, in an effort to turn those people towards God.

im no expert on the Old Testament, so i can't say there are no examples that wouldnt fall under what i've described above. someone who knows more about the Old Testament may be able to say more, or maybe already has!

sorry if i've missed something, i dont have time to read however many posts there are in this thread.

julz

Posted By: jcl

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/19/07 10:28

Yes, lack of God's presence is not necessarily atheism. There are many Christians - maybe the majority? - who also believe that God is not physically present, but exists only in our mind. However in primitive tribal religions and in fundamentalism, normally their God decides whether an earthquake physically happens or not. I don't think there is much difference in whether he decides this by act or by omission.

God killed people for many reasons in the Old testament, not necessarily for committing huge sins. It depended on his mood. According to the bible, if he was in a bad mood he killed hundreds just for offering him using the wrong incense, or just to prove that he can do it.

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html

Quote:

those books... they are lists... of all the illegal things and ungodly things everyone in that room did, and it would be something like the whole, i should have done worse to humanity, it deserves it

Hmm, I have the impression that such "lists of ungodly things" would not help God to get acquitted. He needs something stronger for the defense. Do not forget that the ICC is used to judge monstrous war criminals. "They deserved it" is the usual motivation for mass murder, but won't do for legal defense.

Besides, its quite a huge stack of books - can it be that the people in the court room have done so many ungodly things?

Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/19/07 23:52

Quote:

If God is justice, then his reasoning is strange and full of illogic ... What 'good' is a God that can't stop evil?

Again dont confuse justice and mercy

I quote from the Genesis

"Cursed be the ground because of you! ...
By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat, Until you return to the ground, from which you were taken; For you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return."

It is evident that "death" was a consequence of the original sin
Adam and Eve were not supposed to die before committing the original sin
If so
What's the difference between an earthquake and an heartattack ?

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/20/07 01:42

Sorry for going a bit off topic;

Quote:

It is evident that "death" was a consequence of the original sin

Or so they say. It's not evident at all just because dying is inevitable for living beings.

(needless to say I could claim pretty much any reason for an inevitability like dead to happen.)

Quote:

If so
What's the difference between an earthquake and an heartattack ?

There's a substantial difference between those two ways of dying and just going out the normal way, life your life and die because of age. The problem is choice. People don't die because of age when they are 3 year old, diseases or other things 'kill'. Where's the justice or mercy in that?

Somehow I don't quite get why you sort of disagree here.

It's the difference between letting a candle burn until it's out of fuel and blowing it out just like that. I'd say that's a HUGE difference.

Cheers

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/20/07 17:11

Well actually the comparison makes sense to me, as long as you assume God exists and there is such a relationship between us and him. Needless to say I don't believe in such a relationship, but the comparison makes sense nonetheless. It's a bit like the previous mentioned argument 'if God granted us life he may as well take it away from us at some point'.

Quote:

The point is that " death " is a direct consequence of the original sin
This is clearly written in the bible

I'm sorry, but in my opinion that doesn't justifies taking a life in specific ways other than dead through normal aging. Mortality was the punishment, not 'dead by earthquake' or 'dead by cancer'. Why speed up the process, that's making the punishment even stronger. God is a discriminating being, since all we are is decendants of Adam, still we get punished even harder than Adam himself (all according to the christian believe off course).

Quote:

Do all people die because of age ?
Is lifespan exactly the same for all human beings ?
Do all people suffer the same pains before dying ?
I dont think so

That's exactly my point. I was talking about the illogic and unfairness of exactly this and you replied with a comment about the original sin. I don't understand why WE should receive the same punishment for something we didn't do! It was Adam, right? Well, why did God punish Eve too? Why did he punish us by making us mortal? It's not fair and it's based on illogic. That was my point.

Cheers

Posted By: AlbertoT

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/20/07 19:24

Quote:

I don't understand why WE should receive the same punishment for something we didn't do!

Cheers

I did not say it is right , did I ?
I said that the original sin is a milestone of the Christian teology both Catholic and Protestant
I dont know wether other religions have something similar
Obviusly you can accept or refuse it but nobody can declare himself a Christian if he does not beleive in it

"By lack of God's presence, I wasn't speaking of any physical presence in a strict sense. Its a lack of fellowship in the light of something like a lord-vassal relationship. "

... and the question is :
Why did the Lord leave vassal alone ?

I suppose bcause the vassal offended the Lord
Not for eating an apple , of course th eapple must not be understood literally

" eve did it first, and then convinced adam to "

exactly and the Lord said

" and your desire shall be toward your husband; and he shall rule over you."

Posted By: NITRO777

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/20/07 19:30

Quote:

That's exactly my point. I was talking about the illogic and unfairness of exactly this and you replied with a comment about the original sin. I don't understand why WE should receive the same punishment for something we didn't do! It was Adam, right? Well, why did God punish Eve too? Why did he punish us by making us mortal? It's not fair and it's based on illogic. That was my point.

I understand your point, the disobedience of eating an apple seems hardly worth the consequence of mortality for Adam and all his children. Im sure I couldnt change any minds about this seemingly unfair situation but let me at least explain the reasons why I accept it as fair punishment.

1)First of all fairness itself is relative.

If I was to say that it is a far trip to Europe from my house most people would agree, however, it is not very far at all compared to the distance to the sun from here. And even that distance is not far compared to the distance across our galaxy. And here I am not trying to compare "fairness" with "farness" but I am instead concentrating on the principle of relativity and frame of reference.

It could be said that farness(distance) doesnt even exist in the light of infinite space. So therefore we understand that the concept of distance has to have a frame of reference. You are comparing fairness merely by your own frame of reference. While God created us in His image, this does not mean to say that we share the same moral frame of reference. Sure eating an apple is no big sin if your using your own behavior as a frame of reference, but how would you have any concept of the "moral frame of reference" which God uses?

It is my belief that God is so perfect that any sin at all represents a complete perversion. The original garden of Eden was a Utopia based on perfection. Perfection is the default, original state of humanity. Therefore any infraction of that perfection is a complete failure.

As for why the punishment was passed down to all generations is simple. Sin brought the curse to Adam who was made of the dust of the earth, (a long explanation) but to make it short sin tainted the blood of Adam. Now that blood gets passed down to every child, therefore every child is born with the "infected" blood.

It is like Heaven is a great clean sterile room. While we might not see our sins as great, we also must realise that our virus would not be able to exist in the same heavenly atmosphere. This is the same reason why Moses had to hide his face from looking directly at a part of God. Our eyes are simply not powerful enough to look at the brightness of the sun. It is not that the sun is our enemy, its just much too bright and hot for us to come close to. I imagine that God is much like the sun in that respect.

Posted By: NITRO777

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/20/07 19:47

Quote:

Nitro's answer is perfect, in my opinion
From a theological point of view, of course
It is exactly what I meant

Thanks AlbertoT, maybe my answers are getting better now that I have had so much practice debating here for the last three years.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/20/07 20:33

Last time OT (I think);

Quote:

eve did it first, and then convinced adam to

Okey, but a snake convinced Eve right? And the snake supposedly was part of Eden and part of this perfection. So where exactly did it go wrong? It really was God himself causing it, he should be blamed instead. If he exists like we had assumed for a moment, He's definately responsible for the chain of reactions.
Blame the parents when a child is behaving bad, they should have taught them better.

Anyways, my frame of reference is indeed different and yes unfairness is relative. But I thought my conclusion was quite objective. If God gives us choice and we make a choice, don't blame us the very first time we make a bad choice. Yes, he supposedly warned us, but then again he also supposedly is the one who gave us free will.

It's like giving children fire matches and say they can only hold them and look at them and they are not allowed to play with it. Sooner or later things will go wrong.

Besides, let's not dwell away from my main point here, death through the effects of an earthquake (can be a very painful and slow death) or dead through aging is a huge difference. You can't justify those two ways of dying with the same arguments if you're fair and just. I wasn't quite stating it was wrong to kill, just based upon odd logic and unfairness from my point of view. (how do you know wether or not God's frame of reference isn't equal? didn't he create us in him image? well, unless we're not created entirely in his image, we should have a pretty good idea of his basic ways of reasoning, since it would be very similar to our own ways.

All in all these parts of the bible make little sense to me, but yes my frame of reference might be different indeed. But different isn't always wrong.

(It's difficult and my initial point of view may be very different compared to the theologic view, but I'm really trying to approach this unbiased something I've tried to explain through my choice of arguments.)

Cheers

Posted By: PrenceOfDarkness

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/21/07 06:15

@Nitro
No offence bro but I hated reading everything you posted. Until your very last post. It was a great answer, and perfect explanation. I just wanted to let you know how great of a job you did on that last post, and to thank you for that point of view.

Quote:

Okey, but a snake convinced Eve right? And the snake supposedly was part of Eden and part of this perfection. So where exactly did it go wrong? It really was God himself causing it, he should be blamed instead. If he exists like we had assumed for a moment, He's definately responsible for the chain of reactions.
Blame the parents when a child is behaving bad, they should have taught them better.

@PHeMoX
Thats a very common atheist thing to say, yet at the same time alot of atheist also wouldn't put the parents of a "failed" offspring in jail. I mean how could you? Say you steal, it's your mother and father's fault from your point of view. Then again, it must be your parent's parents fault for failing to teach them how to raise kids, and so forth and so forth.

As far as us being blamed for Adam's flaw, all of us are supposedly part of Adam, and I guess in a way part of god as well since we are his creation. See my friends, I've been caught between believer and non-believer for about the last 6 months, and it really sent me into a deep depression. During this time I had a lot of family/school/work problems because of this. So for a very long time, LITERALLY every moment while I was concuss I would be thinking about what if their is no god. This led me to write a logical list of why god must exist, on the back of the list was a list of why god doesn't exist. It started as an assignment for one of my courses, but I took it way beyond that point. Now normally I don't like to talk about my personal life (like the crap i mentioned above) because I never feel it's important, but since this part of the forum is made for just talking I'll give you a small break down below.

Reasons why God Doesn't Exist:
1)Why would their be life after death? It makes no sense to end something that your going to continue.
2)According to sociologist the functionalist theory states (dumbed down version) that if something doesn't have a function it will either wither away or not exist in the first place. Meaning, there is no real need in this reality for an after life (AKA heaven). If Timmy doesn't get his action figure; isn't happy; doesn't go to heaven (to be happy forever), will life end on earth? No.
3)In reference to functionalist theory once more, there is no need for a God that doesn't do anything. Further note: NO GOD = NO HEAVEN.
4)God is a result of ignorance. Reference: In the past when woman would seemingly self procreate (give birth; the only thing people ever heard of that could create it's self was gods) woman were worshiped as Gods. Since our ignorance couldn't explain we (men) had sex with them and they became pregnant, and 9 long month later had a baby that didn't even have just their DNA, we assumed the only possibility was they were gods. (lol, my research has proven woman are indeed NOT gods, i know this might come as a shock if your girlfriend is a lot like mine lol)

The above arguments scored me an A- in my debate class. The 2nd part of my project was to argue the opposite side of the argument. And I earned an A with just 1 simple reason. My Professor was an atheist and told me he had never heard of or though of the following argument. I guess it also proves it's not how much you put on paper but more about what it says. Infact my reason below is based on science, that's why he loved it so much. Science is sometimes though of as the anti god. Evey thing in the bible science uses against god. But he thought I came up with something science said to actually prove that science might be wrong.

Only Logical Reason For a God:
1) One law of Physics states simply that matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed. And well that's just it!!! Look around you, EVERYTHING is made up of energy and matter, which can't be created nor destroyed, yet it still exists. I know I didn't make it, was it any of yous? There for finally After a very short essay my conclusion stated the only plausible explanation i have ever heard of for the creation of energy and matter that could offset this science law was that a supreme being has created it (I have infact heard of string theory @JCL, and I don't know if you ever heard of M theory which is the modern conclusion to string theory, but it would mean that membrains in the multi-verse would have had to also be created by something).

Posted By: lostclimate

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/21/07 06:26

Quote:

It's like giving children fire matches and say they can only hold them and look at them and they are not allowed to play with it. Sooner or later things will go wrong.

god didnt give us free will just to tempt us for the fun of it, he gave us free will because:
1. We then have no right to say we were forced into anything, we were given a choice.

2. To test our faith, to make it known that we will try not to sin whether we have a choice or not (like the first time a parent lets there child stay out late)

Posted By: jcl

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/21/07 13:12

Quote:

I have infact heard of string theory @JCL, and I don't know if you ever heard of M theory which is the modern conclusion to string theory, but it would mean that membrains in the multi-verse would have had to also be created by something

I assume you refer to Gabriele Veneziano's theory. According to him the Big Bang was caused by the collision and penetration of 11-dimensional branes. Those branes were not created, their existence is just a consequence of string theory. Of course, you can now ask "Who created string theory?".

However, it's a myth that a law of physics prevents the creation or destruction of matter or energy. There is no such general law; energy conservation only applies to specific situations, and is violated for instance by the expansion of the universe, or by the uncertainty principle.

Quote:

You are comparing fairness merely by your own frame of reference. While God created us in His image, this does not mean to say that we share the same moral frame of reference. Sure eating an apple is no big sin if your using your own behavior as a frame of reference, but how would you have any concept of the "moral frame of reference" which God uses?

This is certainly correct. I agree that it completely explains all acts that God commits. God just uses his own moral frame of reference. His moral standards are just different from ours, so who are we to consider our moral system more relevant than God's?

However, does the mere fact that God's acts don't violate his own moral standards already justify them?

Are fairness and morale totally relative and just depend on a frame of reference?

If it were so, we also could just kill anyone when he deserved it according to our personal understanding of fairness and morale. Saddam was justified to kill people. He considered himself so powerful and perfect that even small disobediences against him had to be answered with death.

Nevertheless, we consider Saddam's acts unjust and crimes.

I am aware that many fundamentalists believe in moral relativity and consider everything that God does justified just because he's God. However this way of thinking would also justify the crimes of a Nero, Hitler, or Saddam. None of them violated their own moral standards. This is why dictators often love fundamentalists and hate atheist freethinkers.

Atheists (and also most Christians in Europe) believe that fairness and ethics are not relative and replaceable. Sure, it might depend on the society you live in whether for instance homosexuality is a crime or not. But every society - religious or not - has the same fundamental understanding of fairness. In every society, it is normally considered wrong to kill people for something they haven't done, or to kill innocent women and children. This "frame of reference" does not depend on the society you live in. It's in your genes. It developed during evolution. People who did not share that fundamental fairness concept could not well get along and live together with others. This was a survival disadvantage and eventually led to their extinction - except if they were gods.

It is one of the ugly sides of fundamentalism - and one of the reasons why fundamentalism, in my opinion, is not a harmless folly - that it tends to distort the moral frame of reference that is natural and common to all humans. If you begin to justify God's crimes, you end up with also justifying men's crimes. This was the reason for all the crimes and atrocities committed by fundamentalists in the name of their god.

And for this reason such institutions as the ICC exist. Their principle is that to some extent fairness, justice and ethics are not relative, but absolute values. Killing innocents is always wrong, regardless of whether a dictator makes a law that allows that for him. It would also be wrong for extraterrestrials, and even for gods.

This is why God is still standing before the court and his lawyer knows that claiming total relativity of fairness and morale would not be a good defense.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/21/07 19:37

Quote:

Killing innocents is always wrong, regardless of whether a dictator makes a law that allows that for him. It would also be wrong for extraterrestrials, and even for gods.

This is why God is still standing before the court and his lawyer knows that claiming total relativity of fairness and morale would not be a good defense.

All in all after some more thinking, I don't think many lawyers would like to defend God. Can God prove that those who have been killed by him were infact guilty? If not, then he's got a problem no matter which defense strategy.

OT:

Quote:

Why would their be life after death? It makes no sense to end something that your going to continue.

That's right. Some would argue that if something doesn't make sense it doesn't have to be wrong. Still, in my opinion that's just evidence for the fact that our knowledge about it is lacking and thus is makes no sense, eventhough with the right knowledge it probably makes sense. So all in all, this is still a two-way argument, not conclusive in favor of no God.

Quote:

functionalists theory

Yeah, but again, if you don't understand the function or can't see it, what proves it's not there? Infact, 'no god = no heaven' is not really an argument, since it's an assumption about the correlation between two unknown things, possibly but not necessarily linked together.

Quote:

One law of Physics states simply that matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed.

Independant of the exact content and accuracy of this theory, it could always be wrong on some points or incomplete to some extent. That's why some religious people totally agree with science, but always say that before all that science can determine, there was God and his actions.

My point of this all? You can phylosophize all you wish, but you a.) will never come to a solid conclusion and b.) can't prove anything with just logic when it comes to religion.

It's good thing to think about it like this though, but based on your notes which 'argument' weighs the most for you? You see, in the end it's more of a choice when you approach the subject your way. However if you stretch your approach a bit further you will undoubtably come to a point where you ask yoursef "hey, but wait a minute, don't we need evidence for �nything to be proven as true?". And th�t's where the r�al argument is.

Quote:

Thats a very common atheist thing to say, yet at the same time alot of atheist also wouldn't put the parents of a "failed" offspring in jail. I mean how could you? Say you steal, it's your mother and father's fault from your point of view.

You're mixing up two things. The things we sh�uld do and the things we d�n't do. I can't help it that a lot of irresponsible parents get away with it.

If someone teaches you that stealing is right, then that teacher is wrong. If someone doesn't teach you stealing is n�t right, then that teacher is wrong too. You can blame the parents a lack of guidance here. Depending on the child's age, his parents could definately be held accountable and get a punishment. To be honest with you I think in this case theists are moreso the ones who often do no agree with this.

If my child does terrible things while I'm still responsible for him or her, I will definately have no problem taking the blame or punishment for it, if I'm the one who's to blame. At a certain point children/adults will become responsible for their own acts off course, but not when they are 12 or something.

Quote:

Then again, it must be your parent's parents fault for failing to teach them how to raise kids

If you grow up and your parent teaches you everything correctly, you will know how a good childhood should be and will lateron teach according to your own experience. Nobody tells you how to rais a child, this is something that comes quite natural when you've had a good childhood yourself. I'm not saying every parent can actually properly raise children, but with the right experience people should.

You know how many times I've read in a paper 'yeah, supposedly he had a very bad childhood and that's why he did all those horrible things'? Well, each time the parents are the ones who could have influenced it to be more positive. (wealth is not the problem here by the way, but lack of food could be though, but what responsible parent takes children if they can't feed them?! Again parents are to blame.)

To become a criminal there's a bit more too it, than simply have a bad childhood off course, bad friends and a bad environment all influence this. Hence it's a somewhat complicated issue as far as wh�re the parent's responsibility ends, however if there's �ne thing that counts a LOT when it comes to what people will be like when they are older then it's their childhood...

Quote:

god didnt give us free will just to tempt us for the fun of it, he gave us free will because:

Don't know about you, but a.) I've never heard God explain this 'gift' to anyone and b.) he didn't ask me if I wanted it in the first place. So we didn't really have a choice when it comes to receiving free will.

Cheers

Posted By: jcl

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/22/07 11:55

Quote:

That's basically what this thread boils down to, people worried about death, possibly sparked by Saddam Hussiens execution.

If a killer stands before court, I don't think its helping him to claim that death is just a part of life and people just should not be so worried about it.

Religious people tend to be a lot more worried and anxious about death than Atheists - otherwise they probably weren't so religious, won't you agree? Fear of death is a huge motivation, if not the main reason, for religion.

This does not mean that Atheists have no problems with pain, suffering, and death. But as they don't have anyone to blame, nor believe in any tales about sitting in heaven with a harp, normally their consolation is some philosophy, like Stoicism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism

And how can an Atheist imagine God standing before a court? Well, Atheists can imagine almost anything.

We just assumed for this thread that God really exists, really has killed all the people in the bible, and really can decide about earthquakes. Unless God proves us otherwise, of course. Maybe his lawyer still has an ace up his sleeve?

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/22/07 12:51

Quote:

I think God just judges each of individually when we die, if your young(child) obviously theres not much to judge.

Yeah, nothing to judge, so why should or how can that young child's death be just?

Quote:

So thats what it comes down to really, you never know when you'll die, and hopefully you'll have accepted God and have faith when you do.

Fear should never be a motive to have blind faith in anything.

Besides, why should one fear death if the 'dying part' can be a lot more painful?

Quote:

Unless God proves us otherwise, of course. Maybe his lawyer still has an ace up his sleeve?

Perhaps God will argue that it doesn't matter, because those people were granted access to heaven?

Quote:

Nothing is just in this world, there are bad things going on all the time, this is a cause of our sin.

Which is pure speculation. Besides, we are responsible for our own deeds and sins (the ones we actually commit, not the ones we get accused of by the bible), if in the end it turns out there's really someone to judge, then so be it. I do not sin, so why should I care?

Quote:

I'm moved by different motives than fear. However, this isn't to say that I do not have my own fears, as I do. But it does not guide my beliefs.

Or so they say. Doesn't the bible in general say 'do not fear because God exists/helps/Jesus saves et al.'? Why would it say such a thing towards people who are infact not afraid at all?
It wouldn't make sense asking for an indepth explanation since it probably would become too personal, however it's easy to say you believe something not because of fear but because of some other reason. I'm sure the bible has a couple of suitable explanations for this too, right? But no offense intended,

Quote:

Nothing is just in this world, there are bad things going on all the time, this is a cause of our sin.

Every bit of optimism helps you know. I'm not crying here screaming to the skies why the world is unfair. In a way the world isn't unfair at all, basically it's 'you get what you can take'. Some use any means necesarry because of their hunger for power. Well, good for them, bad for others unfortunately. Up to there it all makes perfect sense. But if a God actively ends lives, then th�t's most unfair in certain cases. Off course there are some that possibly 'deserve to die' if such a punishment is even legit for any crime done. (imagine the prosecutors burn in hell for their judgment over others)

Cheers

Posted By: William

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/22/07 14:12

Quote:

Yeah, nothing to judge, so why should or how can that young child's death be just?

Who said death is just? I was speaking of the God acting as a judge in the afterlife as being just when dealing with our past lives. I don't necessarily think death is cause of God but rather our own sin as described in the bible. Don't lead yourself into thinking that all things on earth need to be just. Nothing is just in this world, there are bad things going on all the time, this is a cause of our sin. I believe, in the end, every man will have to account for himself.

Quote:

Fear should never be a motive to have blind faith in anything.

I never mentioned fear as a motive for anything. I'm moved by different motives than fear. However, this isn't to say that I do not have my own fears, as I do. But it does not guide my beliefs.

Quote:

Religious people tend to be a lot more worried and anxious about death than Atheists - otherwise they probably weren't so religious, won't you agree? Fear of death is a huge motivation, if not the main reason, for religion.

I don't know the minds of everyone who believes in religion(or just in the bible for that matter), so I cannot make an assumption on this. From who I know personally, religion seems to give people a sense of belonging, churches and institutes are gathering places. This I have no problem with. However, I usually dislike most other aspects of religion, which exist to control people. I'm more of the open minded type. Perhaps fear is motivation for some, but from who I know personally, i'd say it's the purpose that God brings into your live when you accept him, life is no longer just a meaningless existence. Some say that accepting Christ and God is not only about that, but also accepting yourself. You come to terms with your own sin, and try to make steps for the better. If your believe this, it's no longer about fear, but rather love and purpose.

Quote:

Unless God proves us otherwise, of course. Maybe his lawyer still has an ace up his sleeve?

God cannot prove anything to an Atheist. Your speaking as though you believe God exists, just for the sake of this thread, but your opinion is solid either way. Therefore, God will never win this case in your current state of mind. By saying this i'm making an assumption your Atheist? Or perhaps, you don't know if your qualified to say whether God exists or not? If you indeed believe in God, then it's troublesome to see this fantasy trail you thought up, as you must be very confused.

I feel bad for Atheists, as life is not put into perspective. You will go through life working very hard with your talents and interests, and when you grow old and very knowledgeable, you will still not have no answer on what the point of your life was. Usually people hide from the truth behind multiple things, such as their work, their own reasoning, problems, and so on. And others just mellow out using whatever means necessary(drugs, ect.). But hopefully you will never be so hardened that God, or the notion of savior, will never be an option.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/22/07 19:25

Quote:

That's exactly my point. I was talking about the illogic and unfairness of exactly this and you replied with a comment about the original sin. I don't understand why WE should receive the same punishment for something we didn't do! It was Adam, right? Well, why did God punish Eve too? Why did he punish us by making us mortal? It's not fair and it's based on illogic. That was my point.

I haven't studied the OS issue in depth, but your argument here is illogical. If you don't want to pay the price for sin, then just don't sin....

Quote:

I did not say it is right , did I ?
I said that the original sin is a milestone of the Christian teology both Catholic and Protestant
I dont know wether other religions have something similar
Obviusly you can accept or refuse it but nobody can declare himself a Christian if he does not beleive in it

There is a spectrum on OS, wherein the issue isn't so rigid as any disagreement makes one a heretic. Some people believe the OS only refers to the very first sin, others think that the very first sin extends to all of humanity. The problem is, what does it mean for that sin to extend to all of humanity? If it just meant that the knowledge of right and wrong entered the world, and thus made its way to all of humanity, then that can't really offend you even if you're a non-theist. In that case, if you don't think you should be punished for sin, then just don't sin.

Quote:

... and the question is :
Why did the Lord leave vassal alone ?

The better question is, "Why do you think this?" If you read the bible, God hasn't abandoned us.

Quote:

I suppose bcause the vassal offended the Lord
Not for eating an apple , of course th eapple must not be understood literally

Literal or figurative, it doesn't really affect the principle of the matter.

Quote:

" and your desire shall be toward your husband; and he shall rule over you."

Oh no! http://christian-thinktank.com/wgencurz.html

Quote:

Blame the parents when a child is behaving bad, they should have taught them better.

Parents, in society, need to take responsibility for their kids, but the fact is is that child is still responsible for his/herself. Well....it depends on the circumstances, but there is no reason that someone with a working brain should not be responsible for their decisions.

Also, you can't really say God doesn't take responsibility for our actions. At least not in light of the bible. But that depends on how you look at a responsibility. Certainly He doesn't fix all of our problems for us, but He will make sure we're all accountable.

Quote:

This led me to write a logical list of why god must exist, on the back of the list was a list of why god doesn't exist. It started as an assignment for one of my courses, but I took it way beyond that point.

Sorry to hear about the stuff going on. I've heard similar stories from others, caught between belief and unbelief.

Quote:

Science is sometimes though of as the anti god.

You kidding? I'm a pretty staunch fundy, but I like science. The only thing anti-god are anti-god philosophies. Of course, their nature should reveal why such a thing is so obvious. One can use science to support theism, one can use science to support atheism, but that doesn't change the fact that science is really neutral on the issue. What isn't neutral is philosophy.

Quote:

I am aware that many fundamentalists believe in moral relativity and consider everything that God does justified just because he's God.

Not me actually. I believe absolute morality comes from God, and that in THEORY He could violate it. Of course, to do so would contradict His nature, which He cannot do. That might sound like a complicated way of saying, "God can't do anything wrong." But it comes full circle in this: I would try and find out if anything God does is justified or not. If I read something in the bible that seems unjustified, I don't go, "It must be okay because God did it." If I don't know why its justified, I come back to it later when I know more (because we're dealing with a complex, ancient text and I don't want to be too quick to project modern circumstances onto it). Think about it this way, I've devoted a large part of my life to belief. If there's obvious proof that my belief is wrong, then I don't want to miss out on it; I don't want to be left in the dark, so to speak.

Quote:

This is why God is still standing before the court and his lawyer knows that claiming total relativity of fairness and morale would not be a good defense.

Well since your notion of a god is one who simply acts on a whim, with no sense of justice, then his best defense is simply to kill everyone in the courtroom. Its hard to convict someone when you're dead.

Quote:

Atheists (and also most Christians in Europe) believe that fairness and ethics are not relative and replaceable. Sure, it might depend on the society you live in whether for instance homosexuality is a crime or not. But every society - religious or not - has the same fundamental understanding of fairness. In every society, it is normally considered wrong to kill people for something they haven't done, or to kill innocent women and children. This "frame of reference" does not depend on the society you live in. It's in your genes. It developed during evolution. People who did not share that fundamental fairness concept could not well get along and live together with others. This was a survival disadvantage and eventually led to their extinction - except if they were gods.

This might seem ok (absolute morality based on a relative philosophy) from a modern pov. But from my, admittedly shallow, study of the ANE (ancient near east...), it seems this position almost always leads people down a path of destruction. Not necessarily complete destruction, but then according to your beliefs the genes of humanity led to the acceptance of child (or generally human) sacrifice, widespread and unchecked violence, etc. You can say, "But those people did it because of their gods", which is true, but when you take a god out of the picture then people just find another excuse.

What this comes down to is the debate between us using God's Word to decide what's right, and man deciding what's right. Some people like to claim relativity, but they aren't actual relative. Because the second you mention that abortion is wrong, then they don't want to hear any of it. The fact of the matter is, no one is really open to all viewpoints and opinions. No one is an absolute relativist (I know...that's contradictory, but that's the point). Eventually, everyone has to rest on the knowledge that there is an absolute rule to everything, otherwise no one would believe anything.

Quote:

t is one of the ugly sides of fundamentalism - and one of the reasons why fundamentalism, in my opinion, is not a harmless folly - that it tends to distort the moral frame of reference that is natural and common to all humans.

I wish I could disagree with you, but so many Christians (and others including fundy atheists) are so woefully uneducated, and so [seemingly] allergic to critical thinking that there seems to be little hope sometimes.

Quote:

Don't know about you, but a.) I've never heard God explain this 'gift' to anyone and b.) he didn't ask me if I wanted it in the first place. So we didn't really have a choice when it comes to receiving free will.

Yes you do. (Please don't take this literally) Step out in front of a truck on the freeway. You'll lose your freewill pretty fast, and it'll be by your choosing. I don't know if I should put a smiley or frownie face after that. :| I'll just combine the two I guess.

Quote:

Religious people tend to be a lot more worried and anxious about death than Atheists - otherwise they probably weren't so religious, won't you agree? Fear of death is a huge motivation, if not the main reason, for religion.

According to the theory of evolution. Personally I pondered death for a short time, and I realized something. It really isn't that big of a deal. I don't want to experience the dying process, but being dead (especially if there is no afterlife) means absolutely zip. Every thing you've experienced, all the happiness, joy, sorrow, etc will simply disappear. What's to be worried about? You won't even know you were alive at any time.

Until next time...

Posted By: William

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/23/07 14:21

Quote:

As a final note, being caught between believing or not, I would like to say I just can't stand atheists. LOL, I know that not believing 100% might make me one also, but the reason for this is because of my experience with atheists. See before I met a paticular atheist that doesn't need to be named I believed in god and heaven, and all that wonderful candy land stuff. However, after a long conversation with this person I ended up feeling empty inside. I have secretly hated this person for doing that to me. I mean really, let's say you guys are all right CONGRADULATIONS, now we all get to die and our life really has no wonderful meaning. Thanks for $#itting on us all some added stress, fear, and worry. When I meet people that deeply believe in god they seem happy about it, it's comforting not to have to worry about death. Then I think about people who either dont believe in god or aren't sure, and well, how many of you are actually really really hoping there is nothing after life. Really..

The interesting this about this is that most Atheists feel this way when presented with the church, God, and a bible. They feel disconnected with their beliefs, and this is why they try so hard to disprove others beliefs.

In order to follow Christianity, you must forfeit certain liberties you would have taken otherwise. These liberties usually revolve around sin, dealing with insecurities and so forth. Unfortunately most people would rather call it a day, become an Atheist, and indulge in many things that actually hurt them. This is not to say that by becoming a Christian you instantly change your ways, it's always a struggle either way, but you end up having a much more open mind in the end(and a different outlook on life).

I think for the Christians reading these forums, a struggle is presented throughout. And for the Atheists, they wont feel satisfied until all Christians joined them. If you look at an incredibly insecure person, you will notice these insecurities increase when no one is watching their antics, listening to them, or joining in under them. Of course, they usually present themselves in a very engaging way, when they are confronted, they either run around the topic, change it, or become a hothead. But that's the beauty of the internet, you never discuss things at an emotional/personal level, and such a large part of religion involves that. But when their not confronted, they will quickly create a topic such as this, and seek you out. My advice is don't become discouraged by the debates on this forum, there intellectual in some degrees, but also full of much false information and runaround.

btw- The reason i'm mainly focusing on Christianity vs. Atheism is due to in roughly 80-90% of the posts of this forum discuss Christianity, usually coming from Atheists. Awkward enough, you rarely hear much discussing Islam, Buddhism, ect. Even those these religions are arguably as big as Christianity. Which makes me wonder, is it just that much easier to bash Christianity?

Posted By: jcl

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/23/07 15:06

Quote:

See before I met a paticular atheist that doesn't need to be named I believed in god and heaven, and all that wonderful candy land stuff. However, after a long conversation with this person I ended up feeling empty inside.

This is exactly why no one should attempt to forcefully "convert" other people to Atheism.

Atheism is not for anyone. If you have fear of death and found consolation in a belief in an afterlife, one should not lightheartedly take that away from you. You won't tell a small child either that it will grow old and die.

Atheism requires to some extent free thinking, self-control, fortitude, and detachment from fear. This must be personally achieved, you can not just "convert" to Atheism, just as you can not convert to Quantum Theory. Atheist books should maybe carry a sticker "Read at your own risk".

Quote:

The reason i'm mainly focusing on Christianity vs. Atheism is due to in roughly 80-90% of the posts of this forum discuss Christianity, usually coming from Atheists.

This discussion was not about Christianity, but about Fundamentalism. While I would certainly not recommend that everyone converts from Christianity to Atheism, everyone has my blessing to convert from Fundamentalism to Christianity.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/23/07 15:30

On topic:
The lawyer that defends God, is he a Christian or atheist?

OT:

Quote:

What I'd really would like for someone to answer would be how NOT believing in god is actually healthier.

I think jcl is right, perhaps atheism isn't suited for everyone indeed. Some people need things they can attach to so they can live there life as a stronger person. e.a. people that tend to let fear influence a lot. Off course this is all simply a matter of mind, but it's probably also why people on either side believe in their things so hard.
Wanting to disprove God or no God is part of this, no doubt.

Infact, the temptation of simply believing in God because you will have peace of mind either way wether true or false is difficult to resist. Still, in my opinion there's a difference between excepting evidence and adjusting your view and simply sticking to your own ideas no matter what.
In a way I feel that's the difference between both, but that's a personal thing, since religious people tend to believe in their 'evidence'. Let's say we find enough (mostly physical) evidence to discredit christianity as a whole, what would the most likely reaction of christians be? My guess is, they will either try hard to ignore or disprove the authencity of that evidence or will simply say it's a trick of God, a test.

Having said that, I think it should be clear to all that doubt that you really have a choice when it comes to being religious or not, because infact 'we do not know'. (It's a whole different story when it comes to the historical value of the bible though

there's already enough evidence to discredit a literal interpretation imho).

Quote:

Awkward enough, you rarely hear much discussing Islam, Buddhism, ect. Even those these religions are arguably as big as Christianity. Which makes me wonder, is it just that much easier to bash Christianity?

Although Islam claims it too, Christianity is one of the view religions actually claiming all sorts of things to have literally happened. But since Islam mostly is derived from or has copied parts of Christianity, people will try to discredit Christianity first. (Many Christians try to discredit the Islam though, just look at the many many Christian propaganda site about the 'stupid' Islam).

Buddhism and Hindu�sm do claim things but when it comes to myths and stories they tolerate as much as any view on them. They will never claim themselves that certain stories are untrue, but they won't care if you say that it's unlikely or probably false. It's mostly because of the general difference of approach towards their own religion, it's very unlike western religion. Normally you won't see Hindus or Buddhists trying to convert people (there are some nowadays, but that's a really modern thing), the Islam and Christianity will try though, hence the whole discussions. Don't forget that Christianity since it's the biggest religion at the moment also makes for an interesting target.

Quote:

Therefore, if they (they not being all atheists, just the activists) can convince people that God doesn't exist, then man becomes the ultimate authority and social progress can be made.

And what is wrong with social progress? Isn't the ultimate freedom and what many call the 'american' dream the result of social progress? Why not let everyone enjoy that freedom equally? I think God would agree since homosexuals for example can be christians too,

Cheers

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/23/07 19:45

Quote:

I mean really why are people trying so hard to disprove god?

Because then they can make sure their moral frame-of-reference becomes everyone elses'. Its very frustrating for many atheists to watch while homosexuals aren't allowed to marry, etc, and they see this stemming from the bible (basically they don't mind Christians as long as Christians don't have any influence on politics or society in general). Therefore, if they (they not being all atheists, just the activists) can convince people that God doesn't exist, then man becomes the ultimate authority and social progress can be made.

For starters.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/24/07 05:48

Thanks for proving my point.

Quote:

yes, because all the terror, the suicide bombing and the [censored] that is going on in the name of whatever has be caused by all those dangerous atheists.
get them! they might plot another "none cursade" or "none 911" as we talk!

Ah, yes. The "all violence will disappear, if only the whole world becomes atheist" argument. Never get tired of that one.

Posted By: jcl

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/26/07 16:58

There are solid statistics: acts of violence are more often committed by religious people, than by Atheists or Agnostics. We normally tend to be peaceful. If you're walking along a dark alley and suddenly hear steps behind you, you better pray that it's an Atheist!

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Quote:

On topic:
The lawyer that defends God, is he a Christian or atheist?

He is a Christian, God would probably not have hired an Atheist for his defense. It's now the lawyer's turn to speak:

"Your Honor! My client is innocent. The proof is already all around you. If God were really the mad killer as the prosecution depicts him, wouldn't he have eliminated this court in an instant? Isn't the mere fact that you still live proof enough for the innocence of my client? But we're not going to make do with this. During this trial, we will present overwhelming evidence that my client has not killed anyone. On the contrary, my client is a victim. He has not hid in the spider hole out of guilt. He has hid out of shame: shame at all the ridiculous tales, all the slander, all the false accusations against him. We are going to make an end with this. We will unveil the lies. This court will have no choice but a full acquittal. Therefore, we plead: not guilty!"

The courtroom is silent as a grave. The only sound to be heard is a slow grinding of teeth from the prosecutor's table. No one has expected this bold move from the defense. Everyone was ready to hear a long drivel about original sin and ungodly behavior, and lame excuses about rewards in the afterlife. How can the defense lawyer dare to simply plead not guilty, rather than going for a plea bargain? What ace might he have up his sleeve?

Meanwhile the prosecutor has regained his composure. He jumps up and exclaims: "I call God to the witness stand!"

Slowly, God gets up and walks towards the witness box. The court is in for another shock.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/28/07 08:06

Quote:

Why did Jesus Christ sacrifice his life on the cross , then ?
Honestly I dont think there is any doubt about the interpretation of the bible as far as the Original sin is concerned

Nevertheless, there is a spectrum of possibilities. Mostly consisting of only two biblically solid cases as far as I can see. Not quite a spectrum, and they're both pretty similar, but whatever.

Quote:

Few Christians nowadays beleive that a kid who dies in the craddle before being baptized deserves to go to the hell

Except a large number of christians (myself included, and just about every christian I know personally) don't believe baptism is necessary for salvation, nor do they believe that babies go to hell.

Quote:

Actually I was jocking ,I was referring to my previuos thread " About women attitudes"
I meant, you see.. also the Bible confirm my opinions
Apart of it, this is a classic example how people can twist the Bible whenever
it is convenient to do so
Once again there is no doubt about Bible interpretation
Soem thosuand yeears ago nobody , even the women would argue about this claim
Same as nowadays nobody would argue about the opposite claim ( at least in my country )

I'm not sure what this is saying.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/28/07 13:58

Lol, what if God says Jesus is not his son?

OT:

Quote:

Why did Jesus Christ sacrifice his life on the cross , then?

I know you didn't mean to discuss, but it's not like anything has changed for humanity after Jesus died. The claim is something did change for our afterlife. Anybody can 'sacrify' and make claims about something we will never witness one way or the other.

It's like playing those prediction games, if it comes true, did you really predicted or was it luck or simple chance? Example: someone says; "You are never going to throw that banana into the bucket, you will throw it over to the left side." Assume it happens that way. Did saying that line influence the outcome of the action? Remember that you can't repeat this multiple times to check if it's chance, since we only die once. Like I've said so many times, what's the point of believing in something you can't ever know?

Quote:

Unless there were some evidence to the claims.

Like what?

Quote:

From the start you've portrayed Him as not-sovereign, as weak and pathetic. I wouldn't believe in your god either.

This is an interesting line, because that's exactly how I think most religious people seem to think. If it doesn't fit, change the ideas to make fit.

Cheers

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/28/07 19:00

Quote:

Like I've said so many times, what's the point of believing in something you can't ever know?

Unless there were some evidence to the claims.

Anyway, this court case is headed for a big snooze. We see that God isn't really to blame for any of these deaths because He hasn't had any influence on His creation since He created it. Its really those wacky fundies who have been attributing those deaths to Him, giving Him a bad name.

From the start you've portrayed Him as not-sovereign, as weak and pathetic. I wouldn't believe in your god either.

Posted By: jcl

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 01/31/07 16:58

Quote:

We see that God isn't really to blame for any of these deaths because He hasn't had any influence on His creation since He created it. Its really those wacky fundies who have been attributing those deaths to Him, giving Him a bad name.

I am not so sure. What would God himself have to say about this?

After he's settled in the witness box, the prosecutor approaches him with a devilish grin. He puts his big evidence bible right in front of God, demanding him to swear on this book to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth.

With some disapproval, God stares at the bible. The prosecutor has marked every page where God has killed or tortured someone with a red tab. The bible is bristling with bundles of red tabs from all sides.

Slowly, God reaches out to touch the bible, apparently not noticing the frantic signals from the defense table. The court room holds its breath. Will God really fall for this easy trap? In the very last moment, his lawyer jumps across the room and snatches the bible away. "My client refuses to swear on that book! He insists on this one!" He gets a book from his evidence stack.

The book the lawyer has chosen does not look very old and impressive. In fact it seems to just have been bought from a book store. Even a 'NY Times bestseller' sticker can be seen on the cover. The people in the court room franticly try to catch a glimpse on the title. It is... oh my gosh!! All gasp in shock. It is Richard Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker"!

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 02/01/07 11:35

About the book (wikipedia):

Quote:

near the end of the book Dawkins uses this to argue against the existence of God: "a deity capable of engineering all the organised complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution, . . . must already have been vastly complex in the first place . . ." He calls this "postulating organised complexity without offering an explanation."

In its preface, Dawkins states that he wrote the book "to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence."

That's why it's relevant.

It's a nice book by the way, I'm only halfway through, but I can recommend it to anyone already. His ideas about evolution are very interesting.

Cheers

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 02/02/07 23:59

Then either Dawkins has posited a non-sequitor, or the wikipedia article was misleading.

Quote:

near the end of the book Dawkins uses this to argue against the existence of God: "a deity capable of engineering all the organised complexity in the world, either instantaneously or by guiding evolution, . . . must already have been vastly complex in the first place . . ."

Just because God must be "complex", according to Dawkins, doesn't mean that God had/has nothing to do with humanity. I haven't read the book, but it seems that this is more of an argument against God's existence.

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 02/03/07 23:27

Quote:

In a certain sense, yes; but the God that Dawkins disproves is only the fundamentalist God that created men and animals from dirt of the ground. Dawkins does not defeat a God who didn't physically create life.

That still doesn't make sense. If God is complex, it has no bearing on whether or not He created life.

Posted By: PHeMoX

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 02/04/07 23:25

I'd really recommend it. No matter your original opinion, it will give you something to think about.

His latest book is very good too. It's called The God Delusion, it may sound rather aggresive, but it does a great job at explaining his view even further.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWL1ZMH3-54

Quote:

Either way, I don't see as to how you can define God as complex.

That's the problem with something that exists 'by definition'. In practise God is whatever people believe him to be. However the proposition of God being complex is simply one of many premises that are needed to be able to approach the matter in a logical, rational way. There's no sense in a non-complex being creating super complex things.

Cheers

Posted By: Irish_Farmer

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 02/11/07 18:29

Quote:

I'd really recommend it. No matter your original opinion, it will give you something to think about.

He better be fair-handed and thorough, however, or I'm going to be sorely disappointed. I read part of a review (of The God Delusion), where he cites a "president of a historical society in New Jersey" as saying, "As everyone knows, religion is based on Faith, not knowledge." As a Christian who believes that blind faith is unbiblical, I have to wonder what the deal is here? Why is Dawkins quoting someone who apparently has never studied the bible to understand what God has to say about faith? I suppose it would make it harder for Dawkins to cricize Christianity, but its intellectually lazy on his part. This is like whywontgodhealamputees.com using Marylin Hickey as a source for understanding prayer! She's a Word of Faith teacher....I mean, if there's anywhere to go to understand prayer, it isn't to a WoF minister. But I digress.

As a matter of fact, I am buying The God Delusion on eBay, and I'll probably hit up amazon for The Blind Watchmaker and (just because) Letter to a Christian Nation. Apparently the latter touches on the topic of biblical slavery, which should be good for a few laughs.

Quote:

That's the problem with something that exists 'by definition'. In practise God is whatever people believe him to be. However the proposition of God being complex is simply one of many premises that are needed to be able to approach the matter in a logical, rational way. There's no sense in a non-complex being creating super complex things.

I guess I'll have to see the way Dawkins puts it.

By the way, how many of you fundy atheists are planning on picking this up?

Posted By: jcl

Re: God's Defense Strategy - 02/11/07 19:44

Quote:

By the way, how many of you fundy atheists are planning on picking this up?

As I haven't read "The God delusion" either, I probably won't pick this up very soon. "The blind Watchmaker" is more interesting as it's a book about evolution, not about atheism.

Dawkins' goal is converting people to Atheism. He thinks that the world would be a better place without religion. In my opinion he's a century too late for that. Religion as it is understood today by the Christian main churches does no damage.