Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 6:57:25 GMT -5
That being the case, I couldn't give two hoots about being divine. I'm much more interested in good-natured people creating peace on Earth than seeing them get into heaven. Or in other words, " peace on earth, goodwill to man". Kinda like your thoughts, gene. Sadly, the people I have known who considered themselves divine, were quite the opposite. The ones I considered to be super good examples and role models, did not consider themselves divine in the least, but recognized their own human fraility and weakneses, and simply didn't judge me on mine, Alvin. If "heaven" depends on my divinity, I'm toast. Lol. I depend on HIS. I think Gene would rather be an "owl" than divine. Being divine simply means partaking of the divine nature, showing the fruit of the Spirit, love, patience, long-suffering, temperance, slow to anger, etc. I never go with how theologians define "divine!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 7:06:12 GMT -5
Divine, as is grace, purity, holiness etc. are defined by the life of Christ, aren't they?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 8:27:26 GMT -5
Divine, as is grace, purity, holiness etc. are defined by the life of Christ, aren't they? Or belonging to, pertaining to, belonging to, set aside for, or expressing the nature of God, etc. Godly!
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 14, 2014 8:31:27 GMT -5
Thanks, ram, bert....... would you consider yourself divine? Alvin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 8:57:50 GMT -5
Thanks, ram, bert....... would you consider yourself divine? Alvin Here's what Pete said in his 2nd Epistle. I reckon Pete is a good authority to go by? 1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.If we are living Godly lives and partaking of the divine nature, I reckon we fall within what the Bible teaches "divine" to be! There are other references to support this.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 14, 2014 9:25:54 GMT -5
Thanks. not necessarily disagreeing, but mostly you and me might, "act" divine, but it is only an "act"...for in me, dwelleth no good thing......? Alvin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 10:04:56 GMT -5
Thanks. not necessarily disagreeing, but mostly you and me might, "act" divine, but it is only an "act"...for in me, dwelleth no good thing......? Alvin Can a person who is not divine carry out a divine act? God gives his (divine) Spirit to those who do his will. Divine works increases the divine spirit in a person. God's people are a Holy Temple (divine) in which God dwells. Would not the divine God dwell in a divine place. He makes his home with us via his divine Spirit. If the divine Spirit is dwelling in us, how are we not divine? Lots more could be said about this, but this is something the theologians have put a whole new meaning to. No good thing dwells in us "of ourselves." But, if God is dwelling in us as he promised to do, then how are we not divine? We are called for and set apart for a divine purpose. We are called to do the works (divine) of the Spirit. Due to the Trins et al, we see God away up there, almost untouchable. Jesus clearly taught us that the Kingdom of God is within us. God's kingdom is a divine kingdom. It takes a while to see things as they really are. Man was created a divine being in the beginning, living by every word that proceeded out of God's mouth. That is the divine life. Man fell away from his divine position/nature and God has been labouring ever since to restore us to that divine position. This occurs when we are born again of the (divine) Spirit of God and walk in newness of life, following the divine course and purpose for our lives. All that we truly do for, or in the name of God, through Jesus is divine.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 14, 2014 10:08:51 GMT -5
Read the Gospels, again. Each one. Observe all the passions of Jesus, from love and empathy to wrath and revenge. He was a man, not a God.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 14, 2014 10:13:29 GMT -5
Romans 7 :15. Is a truth in my life Not too divine. Analogy - I might be able to fly an airplane, but I cannot fly. Alvin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 10:14:06 GMT -5
Read the Gospels, again. Each one. Observe all the passions of Jesus, from love and empathy to wrath and revenge. He was a man, not a God. Brilliant Snow. It astounds me just how often atheists and other non-believers show a greater knowledge about Jesus than what most Christians have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 10:18:48 GMT -5
Romans 7 :15. Is a truth in my life Not too divine. Analogy - I might be able to fly an airplane, but I cannot fly. Alvin It doesn't matter what your abilities are, it is doing the will of the one who has called you into service, whatever that may be.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 14, 2014 10:20:17 GMT -5
Thanks. not necessarily disagreeing, but mostly you and me might, "act" divine, but it is only an "act"...for in me, dwelleth no good thing......? Alvin Can a person who is not divine carry out a divine act? God gives his (divine) Spirit to those who do his will. Divine works increases the divine spirit in a person. God's people are a Holy Temple (divine) in which God dwells. Would not the divine God dwell in a divine place. He makes his home with us via his divine Spirit. If the divine Spirit is dwelling in us, how are we not divine? Lots more could be said about this, but this is something the theologians have put a whole new meaning to. No good thing dwells in us "of ourselves." But, if God is dwelling in us as he promised to do, then how are we not divine? We are called for and set apart for a divine purpose. We are called to do the works (divine) of the Spirit. Due to the Trins et al, we see God away up there, almost untouchable. Jesus clearly taught us that the Kingdom of God is within us. God's kingdom is a divine kingdom. It takes a while to see things as they really are. Man was created a divine being in the beginning, living by every word that proceeded out of God's mouth. That is the divine life. Man fell away from his divine position/nature and God has been labouring ever since to restore us to that divine position. This occurs when we are born again of the (divine) Spirit of God and walk in newness of life, following the divine course and purpose for our lives. All that we truly do for, or in the name of God, through Jesus is divine. If we are made from God in his image wouldn't we just automatically be divine like him/her then? You see this is what I hate most about belief in God. Everyone says that the good comes from God that they do and anything bad is the devil. I don't see it that way. I see it as the good is me and the bad is me. I am what I am. If there is no God then how would you explain the good that comes from so many people. If there is no devil, now do you explain the bad that comes also? You would naturally look at the definition of being a human and come to the conclusion that we have the ability to choose one or the other and we do on a regular basis. Giving credit for good to God denies any goodness in us. Giving credit to the devil denies any badness in us. We don't take responsibility for the good and the bad that is always available for us to choose between. That's how I see it anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 11:10:15 GMT -5
Can a person who is not divine carry out a divine act? God gives his (divine) Spirit to those who do his will. Divine works increases the divine spirit in a person. God's people are a Holy Temple (divine) in which God dwells. Would not the divine God dwell in a divine place. He makes his home with us via his divine Spirit. If the divine Spirit is dwelling in us, how are we not divine? Lots more could be said about this, but this is something the theologians have put a whole new meaning to. No good thing dwells in us "of ourselves." But, if God is dwelling in us as he promised to do, then how are we not divine? We are called for and set apart for a divine purpose. We are called to do the works (divine) of the Spirit. Due to the Trins et al, we see God away up there, almost untouchable. Jesus clearly taught us that the Kingdom of God is within us. God's kingdom is a divine kingdom. It takes a while to see things as they really are. Man was created a divine being in the beginning, living by every word that proceeded out of God's mouth. That is the divine life. Man fell away from his divine position/nature and God has been labouring ever since to restore us to that divine position. This occurs when we are born again of the (divine) Spirit of God and walk in newness of life, following the divine course and purpose for our lives. All that we truly do for, or in the name of God, through Jesus is divine. If we are made from God in his image wouldn't we just automatically be divine like him/her then? You see this is what I hate most about belief in God. Everyone says that the good comes from God that they do and anything bad is the devil. I don't see it that way. I see it as the good is me and the bad is me. I am what I am. If there is no God then how would you explain the good that comes from so many people. If there is no devil, now do you explain the bad that comes also? You would naturally look at the definition of being a human and come to the conclusion that we have the ability to choose one or the other and we do on a regular basis. Giving credit for good to God denies any goodness in us. Giving credit to the devil denies any badness in us. We don't take responsibility for the good and the bad that is always available for us to choose between. That's how I see it anyway. Man "originally" was created in the divine image of God. Man was very naughty and disobeyed God and fell away from his divine nature. God is trying to restore us to our original condition. Jesus came in the express "image of God and it is through him that we are restored to our divine state. When Man was very naughty in the Garden of Eden he lost that divine condition and came to know "good and evil," a nature that knew BOTH good and evil. So this explains how man can do many good things and many naughty things. We follow our own will for good or bad. Our human nature is a "corrupt" nature. God created us with an uncorrupt nature, but with our own free will to obey him or otherwise. The battle between God and the Devil is really about corruption and incorruption, or righteousness vs unrighteousness. God wants a pure offering not a corrupt offering which is what human nature offers. In winter time there is nothing more beautiful and pure as the driven Snow, but after a while it gets corrupted, etc. God wants us to choose his righteousness not anything that is corrupted.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 14, 2014 12:58:05 GMT -5
This is a semantic question: Is acknowledgement of one's inability to prove (disprove) a specific argument considered the basis for a claim of agnosticism? It has always been my understanding that an agnostic's position is simply: "I am unable to know". Superficially, at least, such a statement seems to fall well outside of the Professor Dawkins' character and projected "self-image". Strictly speaking, there are few things that can be 'known' with certainty. I cannot prove there is not a god hidden somewhere in the universe. On the other hand is there a need to prove that every imaginable thing anyone does not exist? Most are satisfied to investigate evidence of entities once some sort of proof has been presented. Unknowable becomes the word in question. People claim it is not possible to prove a negative. No everyone agrees. Is there an agreed upon definition of god? As stated, my post concerns the meaning of a word in context. I intended my post to stimulate a conversation about the use of the word “agnostic” to describe Professor Dawkins published works regarding the existence/non-existence of “God”. If the post-modern, relativistic definition of “agnostic” is to be extended to include the published works of Professor Dawkins as an exemplar, I will cease using that word to express my personal inability to “know” with respect to the existence/non-existence of “God”. If the word “agnostic” is to be extended to include the Professor Dawkins published perspectives, I mourn the loss of a word whose meaning and value has been lost through the depreciation of excessive inclusiveness. At the moment, I am unable to think of a replacement word that captures the traditional meaning of “agnostic” as I have used that word in the past and would be interested in alternate suggestions. Your response to my question about semantics (the meaning of the word “agnostic”) offered a series of generalized epistemological observations which, although interesting and worthy of reflection, are tangential to the question raised. I suspect that our conceptions of the role of “formal logic” for epistemological analysis differ to some degree but that was not the intended purpose of my post. I would be delighted to learn more about your views on the role of empirical evidence in epistomology at another time. We do have a difference of opinion as to “the word in question”. It remains my position that “delusion” is “the word in question”. One accepted understanding of “delusion” is as a symptom of mental disorder. I argue that an “agnostic” (as I understand the meaning of the word) would not title their book “The God Delusion”. As state earlier, if the definition of “agnostic” has been extended to include the published perspectives of Professor Dawkins, then I am mistaken. No, I do not believe that there is an “agreed upon definition of god”. It would be my hope that compassionate and reflective individuals would recognize the absence of a commonly accepted understanding of the word and make the choice not to use words implying a symptom of a mental disorder in their book titles. Frankly, I have a preference for conversations with individuals like yourself who understand and appreciate the value of opinions that differ. I am interested in different experiences and the rational basis for differing points of view. Conversely, I feel no desire to contribute to the notoriety and celebrity of an individual (Professor Dawkins) who champions intolerance for views different from his own.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 14, 2014 14:10:17 GMT -5
I have often said that the main difference between "a theist" and an "atheist" is a typo. In a somewhat strange twist, creating space with nothing in it turns a non-believer into a believer. This just made it to my document of memorable quotes. I'm not sure if it is original or not? There is more Truth here than many might suspect. It is definitely my experience of creating/making room for "space with nothing in it" that has made me a 'believer' (though perhaps an unconventional one). That phrase is about grammar "construction" of the words and not the "meaning" of the words. It may seem to have meaning, but no meaning really exists.
It is just a quirky way of trying to put meaning into something where no meaning really exists.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 14, 2014 15:02:27 GMT -5
Strictly speaking, there are few things that can be 'known' with certainty. I cannot prove there is not a god hidden somewhere in the universe. On the other hand is there a need to prove that every imaginable thing anyone does not exist? Most are satisfied to investigate evidence of entities once some sort of proof has been presented. Unknowable becomes the word in question. People claim it is not possible to prove a negative. No everyone agrees. Is there an agreed upon definition of god? As stated, my post concerns the meaning of a word in context. I intended my post to stimulate a conversation about the use of the word “agnostic” to describe Professor Dawkins published works regarding the existence/non-existence of “God”. If the post-modern, relativistic definition of “agnostic” is to be extended to include the published works of Professor Dawkins as an exemplar, I will cease using that word to express my personal inability to “know” with respect to the existence/non-existence of “God”. If the word “agnostic” is to be extended to include the Professor Dawkins published perspectives, I mourn the loss of a word whose meaning and value has been lost through the depreciation of excessive inclusiveness. At the moment, I am unable to think of a replacement word that captures the traditional meaning of “agnostic” as I have used that word in the past and would be interested in alternate suggestions. Your response to my question about semantics ( the meaning of the word “agnostic”) offered a series of generalized epistemological observations which, although interesting and worthy of reflection, are tangential to the question raised. I suspect that our conceptions of the role of “formal logic” for epistemological analysis differ to some degree but that was not the intended purpose of my post. I would be delighted to learn more about your views on the role of empirical evidence in epistomology at another time. We do have a difference of opinion as to “the word in question”. It remains my position that “delusion” is “the word in question”. One accepted understanding of “delusion” is as a symptom of mental disorder. I argue that an “agnostic” (as I understand the meaning of the word) would not title their book “The God Delusion”. As state earlier, if the definition of “agnostic” has been extended to include the published perspectives of Professor Dawkins, then I am mistaken. No, I do not believe that there is an “agreed upon definition of god”. It would be my hope that compassionate and reflective individuals would recognize the absence of a commonly accepted understanding of the word and make the choice not to use words implying a symptom of a mental disorder in their book titles. Frankly, I have a preference for conversations with individuals like yourself who understand and appreciate the value of opinions that differ. I am interested in different experiences and the rational basis for differing points of view. Conversely, I feel no desire to contribute to the notoriety and celebrity of an individual (Professor Dawkins) who champions intolerance for views different from his own. I understood your post was about the semantics, of words agnostic and delusions.
I won't comment on the use of agnostic, except does Dawkins claim his view is agnostic?
I am aware that many people, my self included, were concerned about the use of the word "Delusion."
Being a nurse & aware of the use in the use in a medical sense contributed to that concern.
However, on reading is explanation, I take his explanation as legitimate.
As to your take on his views as intolerant, are his views that much more intolerant than most Christians concerning the views of we atheists?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 14, 2014 15:22:01 GMT -5
It just doesn't define god. And at the point of the gospels - was Jesus god? According to the Gospel authors, and those of the Old Testament, the Messiah was the "expressed image" of His heavenly Father. Some skeptics cast God in an image of their own making, thus God, who is omnipotent, cannot rage against His own creation. But God gave free agency to man, and man's behavior can illicit behavior of God.This makes little sense, Bert. An omniscient being's behavior is already a fait accompli to that being. As are all events for all of time.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 14, 2014 15:59:43 GMT -5
I understood your post was about the semantics, of words agnostic and delusions.
I won't comment on the use of agnostic, except does Dawkins claim his view is agnostic? {Reference: Dec 13, 2014 10:48:12 GMT -5 matisse}I am aware that many people, my self included, were concerned about the use of the word "Delusion."Being a nurse & aware of the use in the use in a medical sense contributed to that concern.However, on reading is explanation, I take his explanation as legitimate.As to your take on his views as intolerant, are his views that much more intolerant than most Christians concerning the views of we atheists?
-I expressed a personal point of view regarding Professor Dawkins' public pronouncements. No further assertions or comparisons are suggested nor implied.-
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 14, 2014 16:44:57 GMT -5
I understood your post was about the semantics, of words agnostic and delusions.
I won't comment on the use of agnostic, except does Dawkins claim his view is agnostic? {Reference: Dec 13, 2014 10:48:12 GMT -5 matisse}I am aware that many people, my self included, were concerned about the use of the word "Delusion."Being a nurse & aware of the use in the use in a medical sense contributed to that concern.However, on reading is explanation, I take his explanation as legitimate.As to your take on his views as intolerant, are his views that much more intolerant than most Christians concerning the views of we atheists?
-I expressed a personal point of view regarding Professor Dawkins' public pronouncements. No further assertions or comparisons are suggested nor implied.- yknot, Yes, you did express this personal point of view: "Conversely, I feel no desire to contribute to the notoriety and celebrity of an individual (Professor Dawkins) who champions intolerance for views different from his own."
Do you really think that such a "personal point of view" doesn't imply any assertion or comparison of your own?.-
You needn't answer if you so choose, of course, -however, it seems to me that such a view as you expressed left the high realm of just a discussion on semantics.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 14, 2014 17:01:49 GMT -5
yknot, Yes, you did express this personal point of view: "Conversely, I feel no desire to contribute to the notoriety and celebrity of an individual (Professor Dawkins) who champions intolerance for views different from his own."
Do you really think that such a "personal point of view" doesn't imply any assertion or comparison of your own?.-
You needn't answer if you so choose, of course, -however, it seems to me that such a view as you expressed left the high realm of just a discussion on semantics.
With apologies DMG, I fail to understand your question(s) or intent. I expressed myself as clearly as I am capable. If you have a specific question about the points of view that I have expressed would you mind rephrasing your question? Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 14, 2014 17:04:44 GMT -5
I could not even estimate the number of theists who have condemned me to eternal punishment, accused me of having no morals, hating christians all based on their belief in an entity for which they have no proof. And when they offer their beliefs as proof and an argument is presented that negates their belief(s) the accusation is one of being anti-christian. If theists do not want arguments they should not present their beliefs as facts. If you claim, for example, that prayer works, present your proof along with the claim. Yeah. I agree that this is not respectful. However, I don’t really see an equivalency here. As an atheist, you are striking at thoughts/ideas/beliefs that form the basis of their own well-being in this world and any thoughts they have of the hereafter. They are threatening you with an eternal punishment you don’t believe in anyhow? ! What they say is not respectful. Yes. Totally. But, surely, not traumatic, unless you haven’t left those beliefs as far behind as you think you have? As atheists, we are NOT "striking" at the thoughts/ideas/beliefs of believers as much as we are asking for proof of those thoughts/ideas/beliefs.
The fact that theists are ONLY "threatening" us with an eternal punishment is due the kind of government that we have, a secular government.
In a theocracy, the believers would use the force behind their belief to do more than just "threaten" us as history so aptly reveals. For that matter in some theocracies they do so yet today.
Whereas, do any of we atheists "threaten" Christians as they 'threaten" us?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 17:14:12 GMT -5
Yeah. I agree that this is not respectful. However, I don’t really see an equivalency here. As an atheist, you are striking at thoughts/ideas/beliefs that form the basis of their own well-being in this world and any thoughts they have of the hereafter. They are threatening you with an eternal punishment you don’t believe in anyhow? ! What they say is not respectful. Yes. Totally. But, surely, not traumatic, unless you haven’t left those beliefs as far behind as you think you have? As atheists, we are NOT "striking" at the thoughts/ideas/beliefs of believers as much as we are asking for proof of those thoughts/ideas/beliefs.
The fact that theists are ONLY "threatening" us with an eternal punishment is due the kind of government that we have, a secular government.
In a theocracy, the believers would use the force behind their belief to do more than just "threaten" us as history so aptly reveals. For that matter in some theocracies they do so yet today.
Whereas, do any of we atheists "threaten" Christians as they 'threaten" us?
ask Mao Tse-tung and his lackeys...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 14, 2014 17:31:47 GMT -5
yknot, Yes, you did express this personal point of view: "Conversely, I feel no desire to contribute to the notoriety and celebrity of an individual (Professor Dawkins) who champions intolerance for views different from his own."
Do you really think that such a "personal point of view" doesn't imply any assertion or comparison of your own?.-
You needn't answer if you so choose, of course, -however, it seems to me that such a view as you expressed left the high realm of just a discussion on semantics.
With apologies DMG, I fail to understand your question(s) or intent. I expressed myself as clearly as I am capable. If you have a specific question about the points of view that I have expressed would you mind rephrasing your question? Thank you. OK, I'll try again. Your statement: "Conversely, I feel no desire to contribute to the notoriety and celebrity of an individual (Professor Dawkins) who champions intolerance for views different from his own."
You didn't seem to feel any need to answer my question concerning your statement about Dawkins views as intolerant. My question is, "Are his views that much more intolerant than most Christians concerning the views of we atheists?"
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 14, 2014 18:05:15 GMT -5
If we are made from God in his image wouldn't we just automatically be divine like him/her then? You see this is what I hate most about belief in God. Everyone says that the good comes from God that they do and anything bad is the devil. I don't see it that way. I see it as the good is me and the bad is me. I am what I am. If there is no God then how would you explain the good that comes from so many people. If there is no devil, now do you explain the bad that comes also? You would naturally look at the definition of being a human and come to the conclusion that we have the ability to choose one or the other and we do on a regular basis. Giving credit for good to God denies any goodness in us. Giving credit to the devil denies any badness in us. We don't take responsibility for the good and the bad that is always available for us to choose between. That's how I see it anyway. Man "originally" was created in the divine image of God. Man was very naughty and disobeyed God and fell away from his divine nature. God is trying to restore us to our original condition. Jesus came in the express "image of God and it is through him that we are restored to our divine state. When Man was very naughty in the Garden of Eden he lost that divine condition and came to know "good and evil," a nature that knew BOTH good and evil. So this explains how man can do many good things and many naughty things. We follow our own will for good or bad. Our human nature is a "corrupt" nature. God created us with an uncorrupt nature, but with our own free will to obey him or otherwise. The battle between God and the Devil is really about corruption and incorruption, or righteousness vs unrighteousness. God wants a pure offering not a corrupt offering which is what human nature offers. In winter time there is nothing more beautiful and pure as the driven Snow, but after a while it gets corrupted, etc. God wants us to choose his righteousness not anything that is corrupted. Now Ram, I'm not corrupt. I'm improving with age in fact... lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 18:12:10 GMT -5
Man "originally" was created in the divine image of God. Man was very naughty and disobeyed God and fell away from his divine nature. God is trying to restore us to our original condition. Jesus came in the express "image of God and it is through him that we are restored to our divine state. When Man was very naughty in the Garden of Eden he lost that divine condition and came to know "good and evil," a nature that knew BOTH good and evil. So this explains how man can do many good things and many naughty things. We follow our own will for good or bad. Our human nature is a "corrupt" nature. God created us with an uncorrupt nature, but with our own free will to obey him or otherwise. The battle between God and the Devil is really about corruption and incorruption, or righteousness vs unrighteousness. God wants a pure offering not a corrupt offering which is what human nature offers. In winter time there is nothing more beautiful and pure as the driven Snow, but after a while it gets corrupted, etc. God wants us to choose his righteousness not anything that is corrupted. Now Ram, I'm not corrupt. I'm improving with age in fact... lol I apologise for my poor selection of words, but I did identify Snow with purity!
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 14, 2014 18:12:41 GMT -5
One consolation that people on either side of the debate, theism vs atheism, is that nobody can prove the other wrong. You can point to all the good and bad people, governments, wars, genocides, etc etc etc and you have not proved anything one way or the other. Sometimes we make bold statements like" prove it and I'll believe it" as a defence or offense, but I think everybody believes in ideas, ideals, etc etc that cannot be proven. Everybody's a,believer of one sort or another, and we criticize each other because we have a different belief. Of course fear mongering, always points out that the "other " group is a danger to you. There are dangerous people in every group, of course, but doesn't prove too much. Anyway, enuf rambling, personally I choose to believe in God. Sure can't prove it to those who believe differently or non belief in that concept. Do you believe your spouse or boyfriend or mom or dad or.........loves you or hates you? PROVE IT. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 14, 2014 18:27:37 GMT -5
If we are made from God in his image wouldn't we just automatically be divine like him/her then? You see this is what I hate most about belief in God. Everyone says that the good comes from God that they do and anything bad is the devil. I don't see it that way. I see it as the good is me and the bad is me. I am what I am. If there is no God then how would you explain the good that comes from so many people. If there is no devil, now do you explain the bad that comes also? You would naturally look at the definition of being a human and come to the conclusion that we have the ability to choose one or the other and we do on a regular basis. Giving credit for good to God denies any goodness in us. Giving credit to the devil denies any badness in us. We don't take responsibility for the good and the bad that is always available for us to choose between. That's how I see it anyway. Man "originally" was created in the divine image of God. Man was very naughty and disobeyed God and fell away from his divine nature. God is trying to restore us to our original condition. Jesus came in the express "image of God and it is through him that we are restored to our divine state. When Man was very naughty in the Garden of Eden he lost that divine condition and came to know "good and evil," a nature that knew BOTH good and evil. So this explains how man can do many good things and many naughty things. We follow our own will for good or bad. Our human nature is a "corrupt" nature. God created us with an uncorrupt nature, but with our own free will to obey him or otherwise. The battle between God and the Devil is really about corruption and incorruption, or righteousness vs unrighteousness. God wants a pure offering not a corrupt offering which is what human nature offers. In winter time there is nothing more beautiful and pure as the driven Snow, but after a while it gets corrupted, etc. God wants us to choose his righteousness not anything that is corrupted. That which is divine cannot be corrupted. Man was originally made in the image of God, but was not divine as God. Man was given the freedom to choose the tree of life or the tree of the KOGAE -- which man was clearly told results in death -- and man chose corruption - death - over life. From that time forward, all of mankind was born into death. This explains how man can do so many naughty things. Being born of the stock, the root of Adam, how could it produce anything else? Can an evil tree give forth good fruit, or a good tree, evil? But an escape was provided, through Christ. Even though all of mankind after Adam was born into death, by accepting the work of the Redeemer Christ, man could reap eternal life. As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 14, 2014 19:27:59 GMT -5
As atheists, we are NOT "striking" at the thoughts/ideas/beliefs of believers as much as we are asking for proof of those thoughts/ideas/beliefs.
The fact that theists are ONLY "threatening" us with an eternal punishment is due the kind of government that we have, a secular government.
In a theocracy, the believers would use the force behind their belief to do more than just "threaten" us as history so aptly reveals. For that matter in some theocracies they do so yet today.
Whereas, do any of we atheists "threaten" Christians as they 'threaten" us?
ask Mao Tse-tung and his lackeys... As is often usual with some Christians, they will name Hitler, Stalin or Mao Tse-tung and others who have committed atrocities as Atheists as the reason for their committing such atrocities. It is not relevant to the question and is not the reason for their actions.
My questions for you:
Was Mao Tse-tungs being an atheist causally instrumental in carrying out such atrocities? Are these atrocities different in any particular and important way to those carried out by religious predecessors?
"The main dogmatic teachings of communism, that we find were responsible for the atrocities committed under the various communist regimes, namely:-
-The idea that individual property ownership is inherently evil (i.e. the evil bourgeoisie) -The belief that collectivization is the key to efficient production -The complete hatred of people who were opposed to the ideas of communism
had nothing to do with, and were not in any way derived from, atheism."
from: THE REJECTION OF PASCAL'S WAGER A Skeptic's Guide to the Bible and the Historical Jesus
|
|