are the gracies religious?

[Balto]

I agree it's hard to change anyone's mind on this issue. I don't expect to change your mind, although I have enjoyed discussing these issues with you.

But you are a very intelligent guy, and in every other context I've witnessed your impeccable common sense. So I will make one last point, which you can take or leave as you see fit:

When I described the general attributes of a divine book versus a non-divine book, you didn't dispute them. Instead, you chose to frame the issue in terms of Christianity and the Bible. The reason I tried to frame the question in generic terms was to decrease everyone's emotional investment in the answer.

So, for example, do you agree that in the abstract a divine book is likely to be morally consistent while a non-divine book is likely to be morally inconsistent? I explained why I believe this is a valid inference. And I think that if you imagine a holy book from Antarctica in which the first half depicted a vengeful and violent God, while the second one depicted a loving and caring God, it would probably make you skeptical.

But when you see the same attribute in Christianity, you engage in special pleading by identifying this moral inconsistency as further proof of how special Jesus was. I'm not faulting you, because it's hard to look at anything objectively when it comes to religion. But would you take an Antartican seriously if he said that his God had been cruel in the old days just so that we would appreciate it when he was nice later on? Would it make sense to you that a loving God would engage in mass murder repeatedly, just to prove a point to humanity?

As to the second point: Once again, wouldn't it seem convenient if the book from Antartica only included the science and geography known to the tribe that wrote it down? Wouldn't it be strange to you if some of that information was inaccurate, even though it was supposed to have come from God?

Maybe our Antartic friend would say that it wasn't meant to be taken literally. But wouldn't that also seem kind of convenient for explaining the absence of any advanced scientific, mathematical, geographic, or cosmological information in a text from God? If God was going to bother explaining the Genesis of humans, why would he use such substantively misleading metaphors?

After a while, you might feel like your Antartic friend really really wanted to believe in his book.

First point:

I definitely disagree about your abstract point that we should expect a creator God to be very consistent, Christian or not. The very fact that we would postulate a creator God in the first place (again Christian or any other kind) means that we are postulating a God that makes significant changes to things from time to time.

The universe ceased to exist, and then at another point the universe is created. That in itself is a major change. If the creator God was totally consistent throughout his existence, then why did he not choose to create the universe at an earlier time? By definition, there was a time at which the creator God did not want there to be a universe, and there was a time at which the creator God did want there to be a universe. He is choosing (seemingly arbitrary to us) specific times to make specific changes. That's not an extremely consistent set of rules. It is a set of rules that undergoes major changes at certain points in time.

The very premise of a creator God contradicts your assumption that things should remain the same all the time. If this God, by definition, chooses a point at which he wants to create the universe, what is so strange about him also choosing another point at which he wants to spread the message of the New Testament? It would actually be following the pattern of making periodic changes to the status quo.

Your abstract point would instead not make a pattern out of it. Rather the creator God would make a big change at one point (create the universe), and then never make any big changes again.

Second point:

I would not find it odd that the Antarctic book would contain mostly information about Antarctica. It would have been written by Antarcticans anyway.

I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at about inaccurate information. Most of these discussions revolve around one book in the Bible, the book of Genesis. Historically, the book of Genesis was believed to have been written by Moses. That means that it would have been written by a guy living hundreds to thousands of years after the events supposedly happened. Genesis is at least 300 years or so before the time of Moses at its most recent point, the Great Flood is about 1000 years before, and obviously before that is even longer.

So the timeline of the events in Genesis is similar to the timeline of the Iliad written by Homer. A lot of scholars think the Iliad is generally true as well, at least in the sense that the Trojan War was real and the Greeks participated. But since the Iliad is written 500 years or so after the fact, we know that it is not to be taken literally. Enough time has passed that it starts to move into legend status.

Once you get past the first book of Genesis, the rest of the books are no longer ancient prehistory written long after the fact. They are much more current. Accordingly, they are much more historically accurate. Secular scholars seem to go back and forth about the historicity of Exodus on. Just a few decades ago, they were convinced that the story of the Hebrews fleeing Egypt was extremely historical. Now there is a line of thought that the story was fabricated. They keep finding new archaeological evidence, and it goes back and forth a lot. There is also a middle ground hypothesis in which a small group of Hebrews fled Egypt, and then absorbed peacefully into the Canaanites already living in the land that would become Israel.

At some point the Bible becomes recent enough to be very historical. I think the cutoff point right now is somewhere in the book of Kings (i.e. was King David real?), and after that even the most critical secular scholars agree that the historical framework is accurate within the Two Kingdom period in Israel. The New Testament also makes sense historically. The Romans did run a province called Judea, archaeologists have discovered evidence that a guy named Pontius Pilate was the Prefect there (discovered in 1961), and the timelines match up to the Bible.

So really, once you get out of Genesis, the Bible does not have these same types of issues. That is why these conversations always focus so heavily on Genesis. But again you can see that since Moses was traditionally understood to be the author, Genesis would have always been properly read in the context that we read the Iliad, i.e. a book of prehistory written long after the events supposedly happened.

I enjoyed discussing these issues with you too, brother!

 

[Balto]

Your first point is actually a belief pretty close to that held by some of the most prominent founding fathers of America. Jefferson and Franklin seemed to lean this way. It was called Deism. The idea was basically that the creator God made an initial change by creating the universe and setting it in motion, but then he walked away and no longer has any role. They used the watchmaker analogy of a guy making an elaborate watch, but then winding it up and letting it run all on its own.

So it's a common and natural view to take. I am just saying that I don't see any logical reason to assume that the creator only makes one change. A watchmaker could just walk away from his watch forever, or he could come back and tinker with it from time to time to adjust things. I don't think we have to necessarily assume that it is a one time creation and then that's it.

 

[Kenny from MD]

Sounds like the excuse of someone who does not have a clue about why he believes what he believes.

My out of shape 45 year old neighbor (and friend) told me Jiu Jitsu wouldn't work on him because he would just punch or bite me if we went to the ground.

My thought was the same - astonishment - this guy doesn't know what he doesn't know.

Really? To me it sounds like someone who doesn't engage in conversation with crazy people. Splitting hairs I suppose.

 

[Balto]

The main reason I do these threads when they come up is just to clear up misconceptions about Christianity. There is an inherent knowledge differential in these debates because people are going to naturally study more about what they believe in.

It seems like I'm the one that can best explain Christianity in these threads, so that is what I try to do. I have some understanding of atheism just because it's what Christianity is usually being compared to when we discuss it in modern day America, but I know for a fact that I'm not the most well read guy when it comes to atheism on this board. So I mostly leave the explanations of that up to the guys who are.

If something is an empirical fact that is commonly misunderstood (like many people not realizing that some of the earliest Christian scholars like Augustine 1600 years ago did not take Genesis literally), then I'll link up to that fact and support it. If something is more of a faith thing or difference in belief (God vs no God), then I'll note that too.

Ultimately I just want Christianity to get a fair representation for what it is, and it's not being well represented by the really vocal guys who get on the news by saying that the earth is 5000 years old and Satan just put those dino bones in the ground to trick us about Jesus.

 

[Oldguy]

Really? To me it sounds like someone who doesn't engage in conversation with crazy people. Splitting hairs I suppose.

You are the guy that can't explain why Jesus Christ did not qualify to be the Messiah. I am still waiting for your reasoned answer.

All the speculation about when the earth started, what the Catholic Church (Pure evil) did, or what the world view of the founding fathers was is POINTLESS and a distraction.

Focus.

The only thing that matters is your reaction to this simple statement from the mouth of Jesus Christ,

"For unless you believe that I am he (the Messiah), you will die in your sins."

You can't pay for your sin. He can. It is your choice.

You argue over the other things to avoid THE CENTRAL ISSUE, Jesus Christ and his claim on you soul.

 

[Kenny from MD]

So are you saying you are crazy? You are the guy that can't explain why Jesus Christ did not qualify to be the Messiah.

All the speculation on when the earth started, what the Catholic Church (Pure evil) did, or the world view of the founding fathers is POINTLESS and a distraction.

The only thing that matters is your reaction to this simple statement from the mouth of Jesus Christ,

"For unless you believe that I am he (the Messiah), you will die in your sins."

You can't pay for your sin. He can. It is your choice.

You argue over the other things to avoid dealing with the one thing that you want to avoid, Jesus Christ and his claim on you soul.

What on earth are you talking about? No, I am saying YOU are crazy, so stop trying to twist that around in some way. I am saying this, and others are thinking it, because you are rambling and baiting an argument with someone clearly not interested and then passing it off as some kind of victory of evidence of faltering on a position.

People like you are exactly why atheists are hostile as a community. You can't help yourself from proselytizing and shoving your goofy beliefs down my throat. Claim on my soul? Get real. How do you not realize you're being a douche bag? Are you that oblivious or you just don't care?

 

[ganssle]

But give up the silly arguments like "Well if God is all powerful and all good, why does famine exist in the world?"

I can't speak for OP but I'm pretty sure the criticism (the logical one, at least) isn't "Well if God is all powerful, why is there famine?" but rather the inconsistent praise He gets. In other words, If God is responsible (via divine intervention) for your comeback KO win, then why isn't he responsible for your downfalls?

He gets all the credit for good happenings on Earth, but when bad shit happens, it's just the plan unraveling; it's our own fault; the evil in the world.

It would make sense for him to be either hands on or hands off. I.e. if good shit happens, it's just things unraveling with our Free Will, if bad shit happens, same. OR... if good shit happens, it's because God made it happen, but by the same token, bad shit happens because G made it happen too.

I think the classic example is medical problems. If a *doctor* saves your life, a devout Christian patient will thank God, because He is responsible. Patient dies? Then He isn't responsible, it's just the plan unraveling.

 

[Hyperborean]

You are the guy that can't explain why Jesus Christ did not qualify to be the Messiah. I am still waiting for your reasoned answer.

Way to shift the burden of proof...

 

[Balto]

I can't speak for OP but I'm pretty sure the criticism (the logical one, at least) isn't "Well if God is all powerful, why is there famine?" but rather the inconsistent praise He gets. In other words, If God is responsible (via divine intervention) for your comeback KO win, then why isn't he responsible for your downfalls?

He gets all the credit for good happenings on Earth, but when bad shit happens, it's just the plan unraveling; it's our own fault; the evil in the world.

It would make sense for him to be either hands on or hands off. I.e. if good shit happens, it's just things unraveling with our Free Will, if bad shit happens, same. OR... if good shit happens, it's because God made it happen, but by the same token, bad shit happens because G made it happen too.

I think the classic example is medical problems. If a *doctor* saves your life, a devout Christian patient will thank God, because He is responsible. Patient dies? Then He isn't responsible, it's just the plan unraveling.

Well I am pretty religious, and all the other religious people I know thank God for everything. Even the bad stuff. We try to find the silver lining, or at least have faith that there will be one even if we don't understand it now.

The main reason you hear less public thanking of God for bad stuff is because it's simply inappropriate in a social context. I mean if your grandma is in the hospital and gets better, it's socially acceptable for me to thank God.

If she dies, you would think I was a huge asshole if I said "Thank God your grandma died!" You would probably punch me in the face, and you'd be right about it. There's a time and a place, and it's not there.

I mean yes, theologically, I would be correct in the Christian belief system. Your grandma would have fulfilled God's plan, which is all any of us can do. And she should be in heaven now so that's something to be thankful for. But I really, really doubt you want to hear that at the time. So I simply won't say it. I will just say I am sorry for your loss and try to help you out if you need anything.

There's a time and a place for these theological discussions, so I don't bring it up when bad things happen because of the raw emotion involved.

 

[Oldguy]

Way to shift the burden of proof...

No burden of proof shifted. I posted the prophesy of Isaiah 53. Here is the link to 365 more (Before and after)

http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm

50/50, you seem to like to use the word "crazy" when you can't logically support your hate for Jesus Christ. Read Isaiah 53 (I posted it earlier) and give me the exact reasons why that is not a picture of Jesus Christ on the cross.

I know logically exactly why I believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah. You are hiding behind the whole "crazy" label. Step onto the mat.

 

[Balto]

One thing I will say I have noticed is that down in the South, it is much more socially acceptable to thank God openly for bad stuff like people dying. A lot of the typical black Southern churches (think big choirs and inspiring sermons and everyone laughing and singing along) won't have "funerals". They will have "homegoing parties". They basically throw a big party and celebrate that their loved one is now in heaven.

This obviously isn't the case everywhere, so I tread very carefully in these situations and don't preach. But personally I kind of agree that we are supposed to find the silver lining in the bad things, so I try to be thankful for everything, even the bad stuff. It's not always easy, but I try.

 

[Kenny from MD]

No burden of proof shifted. I posted the prophesy of Isaiah 53. Here is the link to 365 more (Before and after)

http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm

50/50, you seem to like to use the word "crazy" when you can't logically support your hate for Jesus Christ. Read Isaiah 53 (I posted it earlier) and give me the exact reasons why that is not a picture of Jesus Christ on the cross.

I know logically exactly why I believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah. You are hiding behind the whole "crazy" label. Step onto the mat.

I'm calling you crazy not because of what you believe, but because you're rambling and chasing an argument with someone that doesn't even want to talk to you, and you not only refuse to accept that, but you claim it as some kind of victory. What about this is hard to understand?

 

[snakeybizz]

Well I am pretty religious, and all the other religious people I know thank God for everything. Even the bad stuff. We try to find the silver lining, or at least have faith that there will be one even if we don't understand it now.

The main reason you hear less public thanking of God for bad stuff is because it's simply inappropriate in a social context. I mean if your grandma is in the hospital and gets better, it's socially acceptable for me to thank God.

If she dies, you would think I was a huge asshole if I said "Thank God your grandma died!" You would probably punch me in the face, and you'd be right about it. There's a time and a place, and it's not there.

I mean yes, theologically, I would be correct in the Christian belief system. Your grandma would have fulfilled God's plan, which is all any of us can do. And she should be in heaven now so that's something to be thankful for. But I really, really doubt you want to hear that at the time. So I simply won't say it. I will just say I am sorry for your loss and try to help you out if you need anything.

There's a time and a place for these theological discussions, so I don't bring it up when bad things happen because of the raw emotion involved.

literally shocked at how warped this view is

 

[Balto]

literally shocked at how warped this view is

Well it is the mainstream Christian view of things. It is the answer to "Why does a good God allow bad things to happen in the world?" It is also a substantially similar view to many other world religions.

I don't find it warped, but everyone can choose his own view on it. That's the idea of free will.

 

[snakeybizz]

Well it is the mainstream Christian view of things. It is the answer to "Why does a good God allow bad things to happen in the world?" It is also a substantially similar view to many other world religions.

I don't find it warped, but everyone can choose his own view on it. That's the idea of free will.

It literally gobs smacks me when I read it, thats just my own personal reaction though but my jaw drops when I read something like that.

just have a look at these statistics and really contemplate them for a second...don't just read words and numbers, but after every sentence think and absorb what you are reading it blows my fucking mind

Some 21,000 children die every day around the world.

That is equivalent to:

1 child dying every 4 seconds
14 children dying every minute
A 2011 Libya conflict-scale death toll every day
A 2010 Haiti earthquake occurring every 10 days
A 2004 Asian Tsunami occurring every 11 days
An Iraq-scale death toll every 19–46 days
Just under 7.6 million children dying every year
Some 92 million children dying between 2000 and 2010

wow...

The majority of theese stats come from poverty, hunger, easily preventable diseases and illnesses, and other related causes. 21,000 a day die in this horrible way, I hate this fucking world and this is the main reason I have a Existential nihilistic view on life

 

[Hyperborean]

No burden of proof shifted. I posted the prophesy of Isaiah 53. Here is the link to 365 more (Before and after)

http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm

50/50, you seem to like to use the word "crazy" when you can't logically support your hate for Jesus Christ. Read Isaiah 53 (I posted it earlier) and give me the exact reasons why that is not a picture of Jesus Christ on the cross.

I know logically exactly why I believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah. You are hiding behind the whole "crazy" label. Step onto the mat.

But the bible story of Jesus was written down a long time after he was supposed to have lived right? Its not really that hard to fit a story into a given mold after the fact... Now, I

 

[Balto]

It literally gobs smacks me when I read it, thats just my own personal reaction though but my jaw drops when I read something like that.

just have a look at these statistics and really contemplate them for a second...don't just read words and numbers, but after every sentence think and absorb what you are reading it blows my fucking mind

Some 21,000 children die every day around the world.

That is equivalent to:

1 child dying every 4 seconds
14 children dying every minute
A 2011 Libya conflict-scale death toll every day
A 2010 Haiti earthquake occurring every 10 days
A 2004 Asian Tsunami occurring every 11 days
An Iraq-scale death toll every 19

 

[Oldguy]

50/50 you are a coward that likes to take shots at God out of pure ignorance. You don't engage in a real debate because you know you will make a fool of yourself.

It is beyond amazing to me that a person could actually have an opinion on something that he knows NOTHING about.

I am not going to sugar coat the truth for you like many Christians. You are lost. Your pride and ignorance will send you to hell if you don't empty your cup.

 

[SummerStriker]

The god of the bible isn't good. He's an asshole. People say he is good in the same way people say that fairies are good, or mad dogs are good, or bad children are good. They are hoping that by saying that he is good, he won't kill them or destroy all their things or send them to hell. That doesn't make him good.

God allows bad things to happen in the world because:

He doesn't care.

Suffering in sentient beings doesn't bother him.

His wrath and jealousy are more useful in predicting his behavior than his love.

He lets the devil tell him which people or things to hurt, such as happened to Job.

He has sympathy for the devil and will allow them to destroy a herd of pigs instead of putting them back in hell, no matter the cost to the farmer.

To make the world make sense in light of their being a god, you just need to believe that he is not all powerful, or not all good, or not all knowing. Lacking any one characteristic lets the world make good sense. I think that the bible, no matter how often it says he is good, shows that he isn't - that is unless you define good as whatever god likes.

 

[Balto]

But the bible story of Jesus was written down a long time after he was supposed to have lived right? Its not really that hard to fit a story into a given mold after the fact... Now, I