Editor's Note: Shannon Ethridge is an advocate for spiritual and sexual integrity. She is a counselor, speaker, author and certified life and relationship coach. Her 19 books include the million-selling Every Woman's Battle book series, "The Sexually Confident Wife" and her latest book, "The Fantasy Fallacy," a response to the "Fifty Shades of Grey" phenomenon, a discussion of the roots and role of sexual fantasies.
By Shannon Ethridge, Special to CNN
(CNN) - When a friend alerted me to the "Fifty Shades" trilogy in April, none of us had any idea it would sell in excess of 40 million copies within months, or that sales of whips, chains and other BDSM paraphernalia would skyrocket as a result, or that a European hotel would replace its Gideon’s Bibles with "Fifty Shades of Grey."
Many legitimate possibilities have been offered for the seeming success of “mommy porn.” Women are more sexually liberated than ever before. Couples are longing for ways to spice up their sex lives. Many women have a deep inner longing to be dominated by a man who’s absolutely obsessed with them.
While there might be some truth to each of these theories, I think the real force behind this "Fifty Shades" phenomenon is that our society is clamoring for closeness. However, in the absence of genuine sexual intimacy (best defined as “in-to-me-see”), we settle for sexual intensity: erotica, pornography, an office romance, an extramarital affair or whatever strokes the ego and provides the sexual high we crave.
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
I suggest that sexual intensity (such as that experienced between the lead characters of the "Fifty Shades" trilogy) is simply not the same as intimacy. If it were, then prostitutes and porn stars would be the most emotionally and relationally fulfilled people on the planet. That doesn’t seem to be the case.
Does the entangling of arms and legs and the exchange of bodily fluids scratch the human itch for intimate connection? Or is sex just the closest thing we can imagine to what we’re really craving: a deeper spiritual and emotional connection, both with our Creator and with His creation?
When I explain through my writing, speaking and life coaching that I am an “advocate for healthy sexuality and spirituality,” some assume I’m insane. Why would someone even use the terms “sexuality” and “spirituality” in the same sentence? I do so because I believe they are basically the same thing, or at least two sides of the same coin.
Regardless of gender, age, race, political views, economic status, etc., all humans have two things in common: We are both spiritual and sexual beings. And behind every sexual longing, I believe there’s an even deeper spiritual longing.
So we have much to learn about God through understanding our sexuality, and there is much to learn about our sexuality through a deeper exploration of God.
Looking at sexuality through a spiritual lens, and vice versa, is not a new concept. In the Song of Solomon, a man's and woman’s desires for healthy sexual intimacy are celebrated. In the book of Hosea, God uses the analogy of a husband’s relentless pursuit of a sexually unfaithful bride to illustrate the depth of His own passion and commitment to His people. God obviously knew that “sexual metaphors” would teach us about ourselves and about Him.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
This brings me back around to the "Fifty Shades of Grey" phenomenon. I don’t believe that fantasy is evil, even sexual fantasy. But when we divorce physical pleasure from emotional connection, such as when we selfishly strive for orgasm through pornography, masturbation or illicit sexual encounters rather than cultivating sexual ecstasy with our marriage partner, sexual ecstasy is only “half-baked.” Love and relational intimacy are the “yeast” that allows our sexual ecstasy to rise to its highest level.
My counseling experience shows me that we often seek healing for our deepest wounds via sexual encounters. Our minds and hearts believe we will “get it right” or “find the love I need” via an intensely satisfying sexual relationship.
If deep and spiritual intimacy is what humans seek, then relational or sexual intensity can never satisfy our deepest longings or heal our oldest wounds. Christian and Anastasia (for all the "Fifty Shades" fans) won’t discover heart-deep intimacy in whips, chains, pain and sexual intensity. Their deep wounds will be healed by sacrificial love (of which Christ is the incarnate example) and intimate relationship (both human and divine). Soul-deep intimacy is what we seek, and it’s ultimately found in the God who created human sexuality.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Shannon Ethridge.
People want to worship something they can touch and feel .
If it touches and feels them back , then it is worth worshiping .
How about the little scorpions they have in the south? Get the rush of a sting but you still wake up alive.
Who worships scorpions?
Yo mind quit. F. Bunny.
Please define "anti God belief" that is cogent.
Can't get no satisfaction.
Stay carnal, it is the will of the Lord.
People are still having s-ex?
Absolutly! could you imagine the world if they werent? What terrible place that would be!
If you include priests as people, yes they are, but they do not want to admit it or even talk about it.
did you know the world is actually oval shaped rather than round? its orbit, being at a very high speed, actually distorts the earth much like a thrown baseball is distorted to the veiwer's eyes.
You mean it's not a circle like it says in the bible? You know, a two dimensional object with a radius of the same length as measured from the center point.
I was really comparing round vs flat. Let's not lose the big picture. I know you are smart enough.
My message is that you don't need to see directly to believe. You have probably seen the pictures of the earth but not directly the earth from outer space.
So, to believe in something you don't need to see. And even to have faith in God doesn't require us to have a proof of God's existence because faith is believing without proof.
So are you asking for proof of a round earth?
The big picture is that the bible states that the Earth is a two dimensional object when people at the time knew that the world was a spheroid.
The big picture is that there is very little in the bible that is worth listening to.
I don't need a proof for that.
And I have never referred to Bible. I only mention God. That to have faith in Him doesn't require a proof of existence. Whether you take it or leave it.
It does not matter if you have seen the earth from space, there is still plenty of proof that it is a sphere. Name something besides god that you belive on faith alone?
My take is that if we argue about the existence of God, it will get us nowhere. So, if you don't believe God exists, I understand. But there are people who don't search for answer about the existence of God yet still believe (faith).
I typically have faith in myself to do something, that I am capable of completing something even if there is no proof that I have the ability to do so. This faith is what usually gives me such capability to push forward.
And how can anyone tell the difference between your faith and the faith of a Hindu, Islam, the many different Christian denominations, and all the other religions of the world. Faith is useless for determining truth.
To me, the religions are the means to manifest your faith on God. What religions (or lack thereof) you are will depend on how you are raised, sometimes who you meet along the way. But to have faith in God you can do it with any religions.
Faith doesn't determine the truth. To me, faith is what carries me on everyday to face the truth.
Still attacking the faithful I see.
Oh, well if it helps you hang onto your unsupported atheistic beliefs you really should ask yourself what is driving you to such an intellectually dishonest position.
Can you yet admit that your anti God belief has as much physical evidence as does the believer’s physical evidence for God?
You didn't answer my question...I am not surprised. The "faith" you have in yourself and your abilities is not the same as religious "faith". You have experience with yourself (evidence).
"Religious faith" is pretending to know something you really don't know and arguing that it is ok to use blind faith for some beliefs but not other is special pleading.
I use my religious faith to have a faith in me. It has worked well for me.
If your beliefs consist of everything that has never been proven false I will assume you believe in, faries, pixies, bigfoot, UFO's, sea monsters, the boogie man, ghosts, dragons......the list is quite literally endless.
Arguing about the existence of God has gotten us somewhere. Without it we'd be living in a theocracy with very little freedom of any kind, never mind religion. Without it we'd have far fewer atheists and agnostics than we have today, which would be a pity, and we would have much more sectarian violence like other places where religious conviction is allowed to go unchecked.
You don't have "faith" in your abilities, but you do have confidence in them. You know your limits, and that's based on your past experience of personal accomplishment. This is nothing like having a faith in God, who has never been demonstrated to be the actual cause of anything that is attributed to his being real.
So what you have faith in isn't important? I don't really get how you see faith carrying you to face the truth. What truth are you talking about? How would faith play any part of it? Also, as a round about response to fred, do you feel like I'm attacking you?
Considering that you cannot engage in honest discussion and debate, you have no leg to stand on. Go back to your pew and blast the atheist for not seeing the supposed myriad of physical evidence that proves your god, yet you never give that evidence when asked. Continue to quote your useless bible to those who don't believe it to make yourself feel better, I really couldn't care less.
Use you religious faith to fly and I would be impressed.
This is another definition of fatih:
faith [feyth] Show IPA
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
It wasn't me who brought the term " truth" initially. I was responding that a claim that faith doesn't determine truth.
Please define "anti God belief" that is cogent.
I should rephrase now that I looked back on that. My intent was to say that faith is not a pathway to finding truth. It is not a reliable way to determine what is true and not. If truth is what is important, why use something (faith) that is demonstrably incapable of leading to an understanding of what is true with any reliability.
My personal evidence that I have witnessed as well as hundreds of millions of others is that the Bible is true. That witness is those who in faith accept God, repent of their sins and obey actually experience the promises of God as detailed in the Bible. Now, you may claim that is all coincidence yet that goes contrary to empirical observation that can be verified and repeated. It happens every time without fail.
Now, you most likely will come up with stories about someone who tried to follow and failed but that is because they tried. Trying is not the same as committing everything you are to God. Jesus said on several occasions if you want to follow me you must leave everything behind. The problem is those who fail do not or cannot leave everything behind.
As to evidence of God being that of evidence for the tooth fairy such analogy simply shows the extent atheists go to in order to cover up their sin (sin is rejecting God). The difference is one does not exist where as the other is only visible by faith. I assume atheists are not serious when they bring up that analogy and are only making sport of believers.
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
Words have more than 1 meaning. Obviously at the start of the thread you were originally refering to "faith" as believing in something without proper evidence, when asked whither you apply that faith to other things you then switched to its other meaning of evidence based faith, you are not being honest with us or with yourself.
faith is a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason (from dictionary.com).
And I don't use faith to determine the truth since it is the truth to me.
"Now, you may claim that is all coincidence yet that goes contrary to empirical observation that can be verified and repeated. It happens every time without fail."
If you can show your faith in the christian god can be repeatedly demonstrated without fail (I am assuming with supernatural activity) than do it, otherwise you are talking out your ass because why would you need religious faith in that case?
So faith is truth to you? I'm really not understanding your position here.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers,
to me even the first meaning of faith (confidence in a person or thing) still entails that there is no evidence that that specific person can get the job done.
And I was only asked what I have faith in (other than God). It doesn't mean that my answer would be equal to my faith in God.
I think it is a bit abstract to argue about the faith – truth relationship since it is very relative to each person. Obviously, some people who might have studied it could have a better answer.
"to me even the first meaning of faith (confidence in a person or thing) still entails that there is no evidence that that specific person can get the job done."
That seems a bit unreasonable. The general use of the word in that way entails some reason to the confidence. You're taking a stance on that usage that I've never seen before.
what I was referring to is for example, a coach has a faith that a kicker can kick a field goal. There is no proof in the actual match that a kicker can actually score the field goal even though the coach knows his ability in the training ground. But sometimes the coach still keeps his faith.
It happens every time. You have to be a Born Again to make a ridiculos statement like that. The prisons are full of recidivist christians, they are by far the majority. Your seeing the light of the Lord looks good to the parole board. Your personal observations are so tainted by your delusion, they are of no worth.
Faith can mean that, but not the way you are applying it to God.
I have witnessed as well as hundreds of millions of others is that the Bible is true
The huge problem with this, is that you are asserting that the brand of man-made religion that you prefer to follow is "true", relative to all others. That's problematic, because 1 truth that can definitely be said about all world religions, is that they are not accessible to all of humanity. Would you really think that God would create all sorts of human beings here, then deprive them of the "1 true way" in religion? That just wouldn't make sense. You can believe in God, you don't need religion to do it.
I agree. And since I have no other answer that I have faith in with the same level as God, hence I answer it that way (have faith in myself).
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
There are many religions but only one God. There is difference between religious faith and a righteous faith. Many are mislead away from the truth. The other main religions have at their core a reward system that is based on some work man does to get into heaven or nirvana. You can have the faith of a Mormon and receive your own planet as you become a god etc.
Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but through me. You must give up everything including your very way of life and give yourself to Christ if you want unity with God. In short only Christ likeness can be in the presence of God. This is what separates the truth from all the other religions. You and I are not acceptable and certainly anything we can think of doing is not acceptable as a path to unity with God. I do not see any other religion or religious faith that speaks this truth.
There is no time when a person who has given away all his or her possessions and way of life in order to follow Christ has not fully received the promises of God. End of story it is fact, it is observable and verifiable.
There are many millions of people who "witness" to such things as ghosts, fairies, reincarnation, UFO abduction, bigfoot, the medicinal powers of rhino horn, magic crystals, horoscopes, lucky charms, lucky numbers, and dozens of other things. Once you believe in something finding the "proof" becomes easy. Each of these groups, and they often overlap even to include Christians, BELIEVE in these things to at least a similar degree that you believe in God. Do you accept that all of their experiences are equally as "real" as your experience with the deity? If not, please explain how you differentiate.
There are many religions but only one God.
Has it ever dawned on you that maybe all religions are actually worshipping the same God? And, that there is only 1 God, but these different religions have just developed differently? After all, religions developed culturally to begin with, each culture having their own version of spirituality. They are all wrong! Or at least don't have the "truth" they claim to. Yours is no different, better, or worse than any of the others.
The idea that one has to believe in a specific god in order to be redeemed through salvation is an immoral premis.
Second, there have been many people that have devoted themselves to the teaching do Jesus that did not receive what you claim.....later saying they didn't do it right is not honest and is a form of confirmation bias.
Given that it is God who calls those chosen into eternity where you live is not the issue. Everyone has the option to reject God even those who are called by God. There is also a hint in the New Testament that Christ went and presented the truth to those who died long before 30AD. Beside if you were inclined to give away your way of life and love your neighbor as yourself that is a very special person. The Bible is clear in that there are two types of people. Christlike people and all the rest. Christlike does not mean a specific denomination rather a dispositon of the soul.
End of story it is fact, it is observable and verifiable. No, fred, it is not. You are delusional, believe what you want but try not to spread your sickness to others, that is all other people ask of you. Keep your delusion to yourself.
Everyone has the option to reject God even those who are called by God.
Ok, maybe so. But you're not talking about specifics of religion here. So, a person living in the middle of the jungle, with no access to christianity, may indeed believe in God, but the specifics of his belief won't align with yours at all. I'd think you would say that he's not "following the truth", but he has no access to your truth(bible), so no option to follow it. If the disposition of his soul is "christlike" as you say, even if he has no idea who Christ is, then God will find him favorable? I would think so. Of course, that also means we don't need religion at all!!! Which is my entire point. Thank you for making my point for me.
Blessed are the Cheese makers
No more immoral than God flooding the earth to give hope to Noah and family. Everyone had opportunity to get on board that witnessed the ark being built over 120 years. You are suggesting that good and evil should be unified as a moral foundation. What would happen if good and evil joined for eternity……been there done that in the garden of Eden (knowledge of good and evil in one ) God is not subject to the morals of man or what man deems moral or immoral today. God has offered eternal life to any that will accept the way the truth and the life. That is not immoral and as the atheist believes (without proof) when life ends you simply become inorganic (no loss no gain same resting place for Hitler and Mother Teressa)
It was put very simply in Luke when the two types of people were beside Christ on the cross. One simply said we deserve this you are innocent remember me while the other mocked Christ. There was no mention of religion or which god was the right God. It was the disposition of the soul or inclination of the heart that determined Gods response.
There are many religions, but if you just pick a popular one like Christianity and look at its principal claims, it is easy to disprove the fundamentals of such a religion, because the claims are inconsistent with each other.
The original fred was, and still is, an atheist. Been here for years. And I'm still waiting for a shred of proof from a Christian or a Muslim that their particular claims about their supposed omnipotent being are true. Still waiting...
Not actually. The reason you or I cannot judge who has eternal life and who does not is because we are not capable of doing that. The Bible makes it clear we are only held accountable for what we were given so the man in the jungle is in a different boat than Noah was. To the extent you were presented with the truth you are held accountable for what you did with it. A misguided Muslim is no different than a misguided Christian yet that is not the same as saying Muslim or Christian faith is inconsequential.
You are right, the god that flooded everything is just as immoral, he killed innocent babies and children for the sins of the parents, that god does not deserve worship.
You mean if you Christians would have kept your mouths shut your god would not punish us for unbelief.....yeah....that makes sense.....
fred the atheist (the two freds that posted before my reply to Madtown) are not fred the believer. Please ignore fred and I am out here until athesit freds mother calls him for dinner.
Just read through your posts and they are all about attacking, or if you prefer refuting, the atheist point of view and none seem to relate to the articles topic, It begs the question...fred have you ever had s*ex with aanyone other than yoyself?
Blessed are the Cheese makers
Ok, first of all you are not a believer so you do not know what the flood story is really about. Second the Hebrew word is blotted out not killed everything. This could be poetic reference to an artist (creator God) simply washing off the canvas and starting over with Noah, a symbolic picture of how those who believe in the Hebrew God of that day are carried away above the storms of life in the protective hands of God, symbolic of judgment for those not created in the image of God, a narrative of why the Hebrew race is the chosen race, prophecy of end time judgment or literal in that the babies and people resulting from $ex with the nephlium produced evil beyond that imaginable and God was showing mercy.
You can pick any alternative you want but clearly God is not a killer.
Now, I am out of here until atheist fred goes to dinner.
Fred “actually experience the promises of God as detailed in the Bible. Now, you may claim that is all coincidence yet that goes contrary to empirical observation that can be verified and repeated. It happens every time without fail.”
Please list the “empirical observations” “of the promises of god as detailed in the bible” “happening every time without fail”
fred has left for the evening John.
You might be looking at this in a very black and white way. You're combining two different usages and definitions into one definition. A coach has good reason to have confidence in a kicker, due to practices and past experiences with that kicker. There could be many factors that would cause the kick to miss, but it in no way is baseless or without evidence.
Yet, you can be "Christ-like", basically good and giving of oneself, and not be a follower of Christ, right? That could include Hindus, pagans, atheists, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Taoists, or what have you. Good and giving people can be found all over the world, within every faith and without any faith. You say we all have the option of rejecting Christ, Muslims might say we have the option not to become Muslim, Taoists the option not to give up material things, atheists the option not to be a good person, Hindus the option not to work on your dharma, and so on. Point is Christianity does not have a monopoly on morality and good behavior. It is one system, among many, of articulating and maintaining what "good behavior" is, and it's only as effective as any other, so you can save all the talk that you're selling something special, OK?
lol @ "first of all you are not a believer so you do not know what the flood story is really about"
Not only is god magical, and jeebus, but the book and the words in it are somehow magical in that no one understands them unless someone believes them. How do the words in a book come to understand who is a believer so they may shift their definitions to suddenly mean something different to you?
The standard theist fred non-answer to this would be an irrelevant tangent about the bible and morality in the bible, and maybe some crap about Adam and Eve. I wouldn't expect anything worthwhile from that fred, as I've been trying to get a straight answer out of his religious idiocy for months.
Of course, he might switch it up and claim that good works mean nothing without belief in his god, which is the standard apologetics answer.
They tend to have difficulty when a word has two or more distinct meanings. Just look at how they mistake the word "theory" as having only the one colloquial meaning of "a guess"?
I've heard the argument from them that good works aren't actually necessary. In the case of a deathbed conversion just the intention to be willing to do good works, if they only had the means, is seen by many as good enough. For lots of Christians you don't even have to make amends to those you've wronged, but just ask forgiveness from God. Talk about taking the easy way out. I've read it here before that even Hitler could have been "saved" in the bunker before he died and could this very minute be smiling down at all the Jews he sent to the ovens who are burning again because they did not convert. I find that this thought being acceptable to Christians and completely possible their "system", even something to pray FOR, him being such a great sinner and all, one of the best reasons to stay away from that faith that there is.
The entire premise of Christianity is based on not actually having personal responsibility, and that beliefs trump actions. All it is is passing the buck and thought legislation. Rational people recognize it for the immoral system it is.
Fake fred, I am the original. Your insults are typically Christian of you. Now, what is that proof that you keep claiming that you have, of the existence of your god? I've been waiting for months and as usual you fail to deliver on it.
fred that scared away fred
You are saying fred has retired to his cell to engage with his two s*ex partners, Handrea and Palmella, perhaps?
When I read the bible I was a believer....but really, why would it matter? Killing children because of the actions of the parents is never moral....ever. I don't care if the bible said " blotted, erased, stomped on"...it makes no difference to my point that punishing children for the actions of adults is preposterous and the fact that you think you can justify such actions and call your god "loving" and "moral" just goes to show how morally bankrupt you and you god are.....and then you guys turn around and condemn abortion....like that god is pro-life....what a joke of a belief system.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
When you read the Bible flood story keep in mind the author and the audience. This about finding favor in the eyes of the Lord and Noah found that favor because by faith Noah trusted God a built a giant ark in a dessert that had not seen rain. The story is about Hebrews and by extension Christians being mocked and looked at as foolish because they have faith in God, talk to God and worship God then follow what to the lost and dying seems foolish. Noah built that boat for 120 years which takes a lot of faith in God. A lot of faith in God is always rewarded but not necessarily in the time frame we expect.
All but Noah had become evil to the core and their wickedness was increasing. We really do not know if was $ex with Nephlium or just society degeneration but what we know from the account it was related to $ex and violence. These kind would have prevented Gods plan from moving forward through Noah so they were blotted out. Now, the potter can cast out his pot and create a new one at any time. This is not killing the pot just creating a new pot. There is no cause to call it killing on any level whatsoever. An atheist that holds complete belief in evolution for the foundation of his or her world view would not call the extinction of Neanderthal as God killing off the Neanderthal so why suddenly attribute this extinction of an unsuitable species of evil mutants to a killing rather than survival of the fittest? Given Noah was the favored species as with the animals on the boat at best you naturalists would applaud the advancement of mankind not attributing anthropomorphic nonsense as you accuse believers of doing.
Nature is cold and indifferent; god, if he exists, is an azzhole.
LOL freds "rationalizations" have gotten even worse! Oh that's just too funny.
As a naturalist you could assign the cold hard way of nature to the flood or mass extinction at the time and survival of some DNA that floated to safety. As a believer the story is clear as to the nature of the soul that evolves into Christlikeness. There were two types of people at the time of the flood and two types today. Believers will heed the warning of pending judgment and get right with God while naturalists will call God names and mock God.
Things never change from the time of flood the mockers mocked Noah and God. At the cross they mocked Christ and the Apostles. Today they mock God and will do so until the End of Days. \
You say you do not believe the Bible and there is no evidence for its authority yet you fulfill every prophecy by your own actions as does society today in comparison to the day the flood came.
Poor little fred is so desperate.
LOL? they laughed at Noah so you too fullfill the prophacy and provide evidence that the Bilble is the living word of God by your own actions.
Tell me how is it you decided evolution of man was about becoming top dog on planet earth? Like Neanderthal perhaps all of mankind faces extinction with the exception of those who have evolved souls that are evolving Christ like characteristics that will find eternity. Seems that a significant portion of the species can see God using something greater than the 5 senses you are limited to.
In short it is time you came to your senses.
Try again, this time coherently.
The successive mass extinctions and even the regular extinction of species by more gradual means throughout the earth's history would suggest that time is indeed limited for H0mo sapiens.
Thank you for proving the Bible right again about the end times are coming! We now have the Bible proven from the Beginning to the End. Let's not get distracted by the details.
Seems like fred has gone off the deep end. I'm out of here, he's not worth anymore time.
you are only three words short of eternal life..........help me Jesus
Not that complicated we can request that without knowing how quantim mechanics points towards fine tuning.
@fred: when you can't spell "quantum," it's pretty hard to believe you have a clue what you're blubbering about.
Just stop fred. You have nothing of worth to say. You're only embarrasing yourself.
Thanks, my spell checker was not turned on I figured you would be though.
If you require assistance to spell "quantum," then you're not qualified to use the word, you moron.
"All but Noah had become evil"
Really fred? Babies, toddlers, unborn..... how are they evil? Your god is a monster and you have just excused the actions of a fiend. Your argument about "pot" and "potter" is daft. You are saying "might makes right"...it doesn't. Devine Command Theory is not a noble or honorable concept.....if your god expects you (and apparenlty me) to excuse his actions under such a concept he is neither noble nor honorable.
Old fred continues to try to tell his story. A story based on another story that was told from another story. Christians would have been smarter to have started fresh with their own story and not one already so rooted in folklore. That's the first sign of something fishy. I often wonder if fundies have trouble believing that most things that wind up in their spam folder is really spam.
It's not so much immoral as selfish. Gaining personal salvation is the aim, and it doesn't matter to many of them who's human rights they have to step over, who they have to call "immoral", or what other stupid things they have to accept as true in order to get it. Heaven becomes the ultimate carrot, and some people will do pretty much anything to get it.
Don't you mean that you have more confidence in your ability to make choices in what to believe in than in God which happens to be just one of these choices, right?
“Old fred continues to try to tell his story”
=>freds story is a simple one; Jesus gave me a new life simply because God so loved the word that Jesus took the burden of my sin on himself so that I would not suffer judgment. There is nothing more I could think of that shows greater love than that.
“A story based on another story that was told from another story.”
=>The Bible is the story of God redeeming souls over generations. The story is the same and has not changed since the beginning.
“Christians would have been smarter to have started fresh with their own story and not one already so rooted in folklore.”
=>oh, like the secular naturalism that has swept over Europe and the U.S. where the Western World View centered on God now has a world view centered on self. Atheists take evolution and extended it to a world view (belief) akin to perennial naturalism then attempt to pass off non scientific conclusions as if they were accepted fact.
Yes Fred, I will take my personal morality anytime rather than one based one the idea of an infallible god that expects me to excuse the killing of children.
And the idea that god tortured and killed himself as a sacrifice to himself to create a loophole for a rule he created is not an example of love...it is an example of absurdity.
Astrologers make as much sense as fred. . .
Christianity is unproven claims built atop ancient mythology of more unproven claims. You can't escape this, fred, no matter how hard you try to splice what I am saying. You still have yet to show one spec of credible, non-self-validating evidence of anything in the Bible. Ancient writings from ancient stories do not prove themselves, fred. Only an idiot would buy into such rubbish.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
“Really fred? Babies, toddlers, unborn..... how are they evil? Your god is a monster”
=>that is an incorrect interpretation under any and all possible interpretations of the flood story in Genesis. It is also an incorrect interpretation of God and the known attributes of God as revealed in the Bible. What you have done is create your very own story that is foreign to the Bible, God and the flood story.
Since you choose go outside the Bible we may as well stay with your cheesmaker story. Let us assume God does blot out babies that are genetically predisposed to violence. God has just saved them from eternity in hell which they would face as they grew to reach the peak of their evil. If hell is not fair either then you just have a rosy plan of your own yet your atheistic belief acknowledges the cold realities of life. Your story is inconsistent with your own beliefs.
What have you done that makes you hate God and create your own unproven story of life according to Cheesemaker? God has offered you life yet you curse God for making that offer. You twist a story (which you do not believe) to say what it does not say which speaks to your heart not Gods.
“ you have just excused the actions of a fiend.”
=>God is omnipotent and does not need my feeble excuses.
“ the idea that god tortured and killed himself as a sacrifice to himself to create a loophole for a rule he created is not an example of love...it is an example of absurdity”
=>It was the religious hypocrites called the Sanhedrin who sacrificed the Passover lamb the perfect lamb of God. In case you have not noticed the Bible not only reveals the truth about the people at the time but also the real heart of those who read the Bible. Your heart is very cold and out to do whatever damage possible to God and the children of God. The Bible has revealed your true heart just as it did the High Priests of Jesus day. This is why it is called the living word of God because it cuts to the heart of the matter to this very day.
It was man that revealed mans sinful nature and what sin looks like to God. When we sin it hurts God just as visualized in the brutality towards Christ by the Romans and the Priests. Christ took that sin upon himself so that you and I do not need to pay the cost of that sin. What you see sin being poured out on Christ not God torturing God for God. It is your twisted interpretation that is an example of absurdity not the truth and correct understanding of the crucifixion.
The rule God created is if you reject Gods plan you suffer the loss of eternity with God. What more could God possibly do to save your soul than take away your sin?
“Only an idiot would buy into such rubbish.”
=>so all of the presidents of the United States since inception were idiots?
You have built your world view upon a naturalism that is without foundation whatsoever. We are talking about a core understanding about the purpose of existence and cannot discount antiquity simply because you like the new bling. The Bible accurately portrays mans relationship with God since the beginning from the Hebrew foundations. You can reject God but the story is in front of you. You can claim the writers got it all wrong but that is nonsense they wrote what they wrote to their intended audience. The story is simple and consistent. Without faith your belief in the Bible is worthless. This is why it is presented as is and why you will not find the evidence you think you need to establish validity.
If you have a better plan to bring souls into an eternity without the presence of evil I would like to hear it. Simply adopting the Dawkins model of nothingness caused by random events is not a plan just emptiness.
fred, why do you insist people believe your crap when you have been completely unable to provide a single bit of evidence for it?
Re: presidents, most likely they just said what was expected and needed to get elected. Their utterances have no more weight than The Babble itself, for which there is no foundation as anything but bad fiction.
You are mentally ill, a liar or both.
o 0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls
“fred, why do you insist people believe your crap when you have been completely unable to provide a single bit of evidence for it?”
=>you have no evidence for you position either. Rejecting belief in God or to claim I don’t know has the same amount of evidence. Thus you also are mentally ill, a liar or both.
Reasons for purpose of existence to date have not been discovered or proven by science. Great minds have gone round and round yet come up empty. I have had a personal experience with God which changed my perspective (actually transformed my life). Suddenly I could see what Saul of Tarsus was talking about in the New Testament and what Moses was talking about in the Old.
It is a matter of faith. My insisting you believe is of little value as would be any evidence I could muster up. I can only say that by faith I was saved by the mercy and grace of God.
We can’t both right but we could both be wrong. The atheist version is empty on both ends of life so I am puzzled why anyone would choose empty over fullness or death over eternal life.
“presidents, most likely they just said what was expected and needed to get elected.”
=>that conclusion is the result of a naturalism world view knowing only cold hard realities of nature and life that is without soul or hope.
Our country goes back to roots founded in a better place a promised land a hope. Presidents need that to push self and country forward.
fred – your misunderstanding and assumptions are utterly ridiculous. First of all, refuting Christianity, as I have done here, has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion of "nothingness caused by random events". A very poor assumption on your part; two completely separate issues; and nowhere above did I say anything about creation nor order of the universe. If you fail to see that as a leap, then you are much more dense then I had imagined.
OK, fred, let's talk about a few things that you wrote here:
[fred]: "You have built your world view upon a naturalism that is without foundation whatsoever. We are talking about a core understanding about the purpose of existence and cannot discount antiquity simply because you like the new bling."
First of all, fred, you don't know me. Regardless, your first mistake here is that you assume too many things. You assume your mythological religion is the only foundation for a civil world. You assume that your mythological religion is the only answer to the purpose of existence. And they are poor assumptions, fred. But at the end of the day, where it is sometimes better to admit we don't know certain things in this world, it's better if we are honest with ourselves.
[fred]: "The Bible accurately portrays mans relationship with God since the beginning from the Hebrew foundations. You can reject God but the story is in front of you. You can claim the writers got it all wrong but that is nonsense they wrote what they wrote to their intended audience. The story is simple and consistent. "
Again, you try to put words in my mouth, fred. I didn't blame writers for anything. I'm not making any claim as to who falsified this or that or who didn't know they were dreaming, or who relayed part of a story incorrectly – none of that, fred. What I am saying is that all we have are ancient writings for a religion that has its roots in even more unfounded mythology. And nothing credible from it that proves any of its magical events. And you can't say why they wrote what they wrote because you were not there, fred. You can say it makes a sensible story to you, but if you want to convince someone that the stories were real, then prove it in a credible way. You've failed at that part before, I might remind you.
So we just don't know what might have been misinterpreted or created for political/survival purposes and by whom, but we do know that it is human nature for man to not be very good at relaying stories accurately by word of mouth or through writing; and it's also human nature to try to capitalize on propaganda. Those are much more plausible for Biblical stories than an "[accurate portrayal] of mans relationship with God". If the god of Abraham was real and wanted man born in the current age to believe in him, he would have found a way to make his presence known in a more obvious way than just messy ancient writings entrusted to only ancient man.
And finally, fred, the Bible is anything but simple and consistent. If that were true, Christians, since their beginnings, would not have been constantly arguing with each other over what they interpret differently. They often seem to argue with each other more than with non-Christians. For instance, it really infuriated James Madison how badly the Anglicans, Baptists and other Christian sects were going at it around the time of the founding of the U.S.:
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
(from A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, 1785)
As a moderate Christian highly influenced in his adult life by Deism, I think Madison could step back and see how silly these fundamentalists were towards each other. I am presenting that quote along with the next couple because, while you trash naturalism, you also mention the presidents, as if you knew intimately their beliefs; and you say our country should get back to its roots. You haven't a clue what those roots really are, fred.
Let's listen a moment to John Adams reflect on the founding of our government:
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
(from A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America [1787-1788])
And a little something from Ben Franklin:
Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lecture. It happened that they produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In a word, I soon became a thorough Deist.
(from his Autobiography, p 66.)
These key founders along with others like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and more, were far from fundamentalist Christians at the time in their lives when they were writing the laws that we still live by today in this country, fred. But one thing has remained consistent throughout our history – Christians bickering with one another.
"Believers will heed the warning of pending judgment and get right with God"
The Bible accurately portrays mans relationship with God since the beginning from the Hebrew foundations.
Fred, you seem to overlook the most basic point of all: the bible CAN'T be a blueprint for man's relationship with God, because not all of humanity has access to it. It's just that simple. If God intended it to be a blueprint for all of humanity, he'd have provided the means for all of humanity to have access to it, and the concepts of christianity. God has not done this. There are large amounts of human beings on earth, right now, who have no idea who Jesus Christ is, and never will. There have always been large amounts of human beings throughout history that have lived their entire lives without hearing the first thing about christianity. Why is this? Because they live in a place where christinaity doesn't exist! How can you not see this? Once again: if christianity was the "right way", the "only way" that God accepted, then he'd have to provide a way for all his equal creations to learn of it. He hasn't, so the only logical conclusion is that it IS NOT the "only way".
Face it, you are in an abusive relationship with your god. You make excuses for his bad behavior and blame me for not "understanding" him. You have been convinced that everything that happens that is good is his doing but everything that is bad is not his fault. You have to fear him in order to receive his "love". If you don't love him he will hurt you. I feel sorry for you fred, please seek help.
Yes, God gives hope to the abused and is a light in the darkness. To those who reject God there are other places of refuge in this lifetime. I would imagine logic and rational thought serve a useful purpose to find cause for continued existence in a cold universe where God is not to be found in hard times that do and will come. Personally such attempts always have a sense of emptiness at the end of the rationalization as the final conclusion inevitably is physical death. The atheist must rationalize this physical death as a natural process in order to escape the reality of his or her cognitive awareness of soul.
Mankind has been gifted with certain attributes that the Bible refers to as the image of God. These gifts include cognitive awareness of presence (soul) that is unique from all other animals. When the atheist claims life at its source and conclusion is simply an accu-mulation of random events that claim is a failed attempt to deny cognitive awareness that speaks to the contrary. Knowing the human mind must and will rationalize current belief and position in order to survive both atheists and believers have “faith” in their world view. The atheist remains deaf to the cognitive alarms and has accu-mulated a war room filled with Dawkins canned justifications. Science is applied to the Bible knowing full well that scientists and the writers of the Bible were addressing a different aspect of existence.
If I am in denial then you also are in denial as there is only one reality. The weight of scientific evidence for your belief is no greater than the scientific evidence for my beliefs. The overwhelming empirical observations are in favor of God while manmade rules of logic established by the Greeks favor their philosophies which resulted in the monument to the unknown god. Both of our foundations are from the days of the sheepherder.
Do you understand man made/written?
Fairies and goblins exist in a different aspect of existence.
The Bible makes it clear that God has determined the exact physical location for your soul to accept or reject God. If we are going off the Bible then your argument has been addressed on two fronts. First God determines your borders not random events. Second Jesus did make his presence known to all who had died prior to the crucifixion and given them the opportunity to accept or reject eternal life. Your suggestion that God would overlook someone is inconsistent with God as presented in the Bible. The Bible clearly shows only two types of souls; those destined for eternal life and those who reject God.
Christianity is a form of mental illness- FACT
These are not real and one would hope you know that. If you do not know that then it is not me who has the problem.
Perhaps you do not know there is a difference between reality and make believe.
And I'm still waiting on fred here to make the case for the god of Abraham not being make-believe. lol. But then I'm not holding my breath – fred has had this same argument time and time again, and has yet to come up with any credible evidence for his particular brand of make-believe – something so obviously rehashed from older mythology. Something other than deluded circular/self-reference.
fred let's get back to the issue. I have proposed that the god of the bible is an immoral monster and as proof I have thrown out that in order for your god to kill everyone on earth except Noah and his familty he would have also had to kill many innocent people. You have claimed he didn't "kill" them he "blotted" them out...I don't see why the difference in verbiage makes a difference. You also said...
"that is an incorrect interpretation under any and all possible interpretations of the flood story in Genesis."
I will grant my interpretation is different from yours... but you have in no way shown why your interpretation is actually the CORRECT one....you have only asserted it. This is the same problem all christian apologists fall into, they claim theirs is the correct perception but never justify that claim. And please don't use the "you have to be a believer to understand". That is a cult "logic". Real truth does not require "belief" first. That is putting the cart before the horse.
Are you a proponet of 'divine command theory'?
Jesus did make his presence known to all who had died prior to the crucifixion and given them the opportunity to accept or reject eternal life.
So, you're suggesting that there have never been humans on this earth, in the entirety of human history, that have not been fully aware of Jesus, and what he represents?
“You have claimed he didn't "kill" them he "blotted" them out...I don't see why the difference in verbiage makes a difference.”
=>I had given you 6 different takes on what the flood story was about and you again go back to your own understanding. Ok, blotted out is not the same as killing innocence. The word usage could be related to never to have existed. In this case the innocent and guilty never existed. This would require an omnipotent God which happens to be one of the attributes revealed in the Bible. With that you have no case against God since this mutant bunch never was.
Now if blotted out means cleansed of then we have the Hebrew tradition of cleansing and washing away which is more likely. In this case the baby was thrown out with the bath water because it did not have capacity for redemption and evil was increasing generationally. You are suggesting God should have fixed the baby instead of starting over with Noah. I assume you have inaccurately applied biological evolution into your world view that morality has evolved as a means of survival rather than being set by God. Thus you imagine that by random natural selection this evil would be worked out of mankind. Well, take a look around even Noah’s seed ended with evil sprouting up. The difference is that it was the evil released through Adam not the evil that came about through the mutant wicked generation that was blotted out.
=>Personally it makes more sense to understand the flood passage based on more accepted interpretations. Given your leaning towards the physical impossibility of a global flood the story is simply allegory where we exaggerate the wicked evil generation in contrast with Noah the one man who found favor in the eyes of the Lord. The purpose of the author was to contrast the faith of Noah that leads his family to the mountain top with the world that prefers its own way and will be washed away when God creates the new heaven and earth where there will be no more pain and God will wipe away every tear and the lion will lay next to the lamb.
No one is killed by God if it is just a story. You are having an issue because at some level you see the reality of not getting on the ark.
blessed are the cheesemakers
oops the above reply was to your post
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
“but you have in no way shown why your interpretation is actually the CORRECT one”
=>there may not necessarily be a correct one as the story is foundational to many of the beliefs and traditions of Noah and descendents. I just threw a few out all of which have excellent lessons for past and present generations. The Bible reveals the true heart of the seeker. Those that are truly seeking God will find God and life-long applications that come out of these passages. Those seeking for any other reason will be stuck in their own pit. In your case you are looking for a killer god, a fake god, a non-existent god etc and you will no doubt find what you are looking for. Those who get sidetracked in the implausibility of the ark or global flood are justifying their belief as much as believers justify their belief when observing the care God provides to Noah’s family.
The Bible goes into repet-itive detail about mans relationship problem with man, the world and God. We were designed for relationship with God and one another in the absence of evil and that design is moving towards completion.
=>the way to determine if interpretation is correct basically requires that it fit with the Bible as whole. The Bible is complete there is nothing to add and nothing has been added in 2,000 years. There are several interpretations that work as all have the same result. It is like 1,000 people looking at one sunrise all see it a little different but there is only one reality. If you stood up and claimed it was a killer sunrise and Ra was great 999 people would know you were off base.
I see fred is still circling around in his little mouse wheel of Biblical self-reference. Of course that means he's unable to prove any of the rehashed fable to which he is so attached. It aways works out that way.
No, those that God knew would benefit from the opportunity to hear the Gospel were given the Good News. This is not predestination as choice still needs to be made once presented with the truth.
This is not predestination as choice still needs to be made once presented with the truth
Of course this will surprise no one, but you're not answering the question! If someone has a choice to make in regard to accepting the "truth", wouldn't one need to first be presented with the "truth" in order to make a decision upon whether or not to accept? Again for you, a fact: there are many people today(and throughout history) with no knowledge of christianity. From your perspective, they don't know the "truth" because to you truth resides in the bible. But, these people have no access to the bible or christianity, based solely on accident of birth, where they live and where God placed them. They have no choice to accept or reject the bible, when they've never heard of the bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You've given a fine example of the circular reasoning perpetuated by the evangelical. Around and around we've gone. I'm dizzy.
You have been given the opportunity to make a choice and you have made that choice. This makes things worse for you than the imagined person that has never heard the Gospel. Who do you cry for the blameless or the one who looks to blame?
Bottom line is you are opposed to God and those God calls to be children of God. It is by the grace of God that everyone who calls upon the name of Lord will be saved not the luck of draw where one is born.
Jesus gave a clear illustration of the two types of people in this word and who gets into paradise. A quick look at Luke 23: 39-43 we see two criminals hanging next to Christ. One mocks Christ while the other simply rebukes that criminal saying “do you not fear God, this man is innocent, Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom” Jesus responded “today you will be with me in paradise.”
I understand you believe it was simply random chance that criminal was hanging next to Christ. The reality is that nothing is really random if God exists.
The problem is that you have adopted biologic evolution as your world view which demands miraculous outcomes from random events. You believe in the miracles your faith has produced yet reject the miracles docu-mented by 25,000 manuscripts and attested to by millions of people every year. Why does God continue to constantly show you the Gospel while denying it to a lost child in the jungle?
Everyone should just ignore fred. He's gone completely off the deep end. He no longer cares, even remotely, about discussion or rational discourse. He has never cared about freedom, truth, or rationality. Look at the current posts. He doesn't care about alternate thoughts, philosophies, or perceptions. All he wants is to feel the self-righteous pride he gets from thinking anything he says is somewhat relevant. Don't give him the satisfaction anymore, he's not worth the effort. At least Chad makes assertions that can be refuted.
“At least Chad makes assertions that can be refuted”
=>that is the proof you have been looking for Hawaii. It is called the truth because truth cannot be refuted. When I toss out the Stephen Hawking M theory stuff as support you eat it up because it is just a theory without evidence. This is why you embrace the unknown and reject that which is self evident.
Talk about complete fucking stupidity on your part. Do you want to know why Chad's crap is refuted? Because he actually makes assertions loosely based in reality. Your assertions are completely different because you're not even operating within reality. Look at your posts, what assertions have you made? God exists, the bible=good. Those are still things you refuse to prove. All you ever give is rationalizations and justifications that make no sense, and begging the question fallacies, red herrings, tangents, circular reasoning, and stupidity. Chad's assertions run the line of "people say this, scientists say this" which is then refuted.
Don't try being as dishonest as Chad fred, you don't have nearly as much practice.
As far as M-Theory, unfortunately for you, has evidence to support it. Look up the warm superconductor experiements back in 2009 in the Netherlands, which has confirmed predictions made by that model. Take a look at the Ads/CFT correspondence as well. Don't talk about science fred, you're way out of your depth.
Stick to your circular biblical, self-righteous, pious bullshit because that's all you ever care to know. All I can hope is to refute the few ignorant claims about science you make, and then see you throw yourself into the realm of complete irrelevancy.
It is by the grace of God that everyone who calls upon the name of Lord will be saved not the luck of draw where one is born.
The only choice I've made, is to use the mind God gave me to think critically, to analyze, and to use a logical decision making process. You know, the way God likely intended the human mind to work? It's a pity for you, that you don't use your mind the same way.
If all god believers were like fred there would be soooooooooooooooo many more atheists.
fred, as has been well described above, you are way out of your depth and should not engage in discussions about advanced scientific topics. So let's go back to basics, something that you and every believer should be experts in, and be able to trivially prove. That is of course, a proof for the existence of your god and the truth of The Babble.
If you cannot unambiguously establish the foundations of your cult's beliefs then you must admit that they are unproven myths, and qualify any statements about non-religious subjects with a preamble something like "Based on my unsubstantiated, unproven beliefs written by desert dwellers alleged but not proven to be the word of some god, even after 2,000+ years of non-stop trying, I and my cult believe ". . ." You should expect ridicule until you establish the truth of your cult's beliefs.
"I had given you 6 different takes on what the flood story was about and you again go back to your own understanding."
So you have 6 different takes on the story that you have rationalized, but any take that does not justify the actions of your "all loving benevolent' god are automatically false. That is not a path to truth, that is a path to delusion. You are stacking the deck, I don't think you care about any truth that threatens your myth.
As far as me "looking for a killer god"....I was taught the loving aspect of christianity.....and then I looked into the history of the faith and found it to be false, absurd, contradictory and immoral....and therefore should be rejected.
Would someone please tell fred if he's going to continue to exercise in his little mouse wheel of circular reference, that he needs to at least lubricate the damn thing once in a while.
"The only choice I've made, is to use the mind God gave me to think critically, to analyze, and to use a logical decision making process. You know, the way God likely intended the human mind to work? It's a pity for you, that you don't use your mind the same way."
=>I doubt the world would be a safe place if only atheists had guns. In case it has escaped your critical thinking skill set mankind has never existed without worship. A logical decision includes never to allow one group exclusive control. It does not matter if that control is atheist in belief (yes atheist have a world view) or Islamic or Christian etc as counter balance is always needed.
Our world has good and evil, electrons have positive and negative charges then there is man with two natures one like Cain the other like Able. When you limit yourself to deny the truth in the Bible your logic becomes unbalanced. Faith in God not only allows believers to see what you see and think as you do but opens the door to that which exists outside of the 5 senses. That is what God created in man so that man could have a personal relationship with the creator. You know, the way God created the mind to work..............
0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls
We have the story of Gods revelation to mankind put into writing 3,400 years ago containing the oral traditions that go back before Abraham to Adam and Eve. This Bible is of great value regardless of what your opinion is as to its authority. The greatest written achievement of all time that has graced the hearts of 7 billion people since the beginning of recorded history. No other writing has come close to the impact on civilization that this written word has demonstrated. Untold billions of copies of the Bible in circulation and 25,000 manuscripts about the time Christ all in line with the Dead Sea Scrolls written prior to the birth of Christ attest to the power of the Word. The greatest world super power ever know to date had its beginnings etched in the declaration of independence based upon rights bestowed by our Creator as being self evident. In God we trust is stamped on far more than simply our currency. Every President in America claimed a Christian faith publicly and prior to that Kings would receive the blessing from the high priests. That power in the name of the Lord raises the hair on the back of your neck to this very day. Obama and Mitt both sought out the blessing from Billy Graham prior to the most recent election as did the last 8 presidents.
Yet, the power of God is not self evident to you……………
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
Yes, I do care about truth that would disprove the Bible and I have not found any to date. The standard list of contradictions published by the Dawkins loyalists have all been debunked due to intentional twisting of translations or time / cultural relevance.
I find no fault in the words of Christ.
Perhaps I will take another stab at showing God is not immoral tomorrow.
@fred – Just for fun, tell us again why the command to slaughter Amalekite children and infants was the act of a loving and beneficent God and how this squares with said children's and infant's free will. Then tell us again how fallible mortals can accurately and objectively deduce God's Will either directly themselves or when conveyed by some intermediary. And then lastly, distinguish your "obedience" view from that of those who invoked the Nuremberg Defense back in 1945-46.
Better still, taking into account your position that God can do as God pleases and such choices are beyond mortal moral criticism, just cut to the chase and tell us when it is and when it isn't morally acceptable to slaughter children and infants should one be faced with such a perceived divine command?
“You assume your mythological religion is the only foundation for a civil world.”
=>no as a matter of fact it was God who in gave the Hebrew “Kings like the other nations had” The Hebrew had lived with God as their King and demanded a secular King. God granted their wish together with a warning about what these will do. All of those warnings came to pass.
“ You assume that your mythological religion is the only answer to the purpose of existence”
=>no I have heard other answers but they are empty and shallow. Worse yet the offer little hope or promise and limit existence contrary to cognitive awareness of something larger than life.
“it is sometimes better to admit we don't know certain things in this world,”
=>there is much I don’t know yet I have faith that God has it all under control and works things out where we are not able.
“What I am saying is that all we have are ancient writings for a religion that has its roots in even more unfounded mythology.”
=>you cannot possible know that as the mythology you speak of could also have come from the first humans (assuming they were Adam and Eve who knew God)
“ And nothing credible from it that proves any of its magical events.”
=>many of the same magical events happen every day if you are speaking of miracles or God granting victory to Nations such as Israel or America.
“ And you can't say why they wrote what they wrote because you were not there,”
=>historians of antiquity go to great lengths to piece together our best understanding of literary works. At a minimum I hope your give equal lat-itude to all works of antiquity.
“You can say it makes a sensible story to you, but if you want to convince someone that the stories were real, then prove it in a credible way. You've failed at that part before, I might remind you. “
=>perhaps I should take another stab at it.
“If the god of Abraham was real and wanted man born in the current age to believe in him, he would have found a way to make his presence known in a more obvious way than just messy ancient writings entrusted to only ancient man.”
=>no, there is that line where belief no longer is founded on faith. The question seems to be why God has chosen faith as the basis of relationship rather than reason. Faith has to do with a sense outside the 5 senses used in reason and logic to verify events.
“And finally, fred, the Bible is anything but simple and consistent.”
=>yes it is, same story line over and over from beginning to end. People argue because of who they are not over the truth of God as expressed in the Bible.
Thanks for the background on our founders. Jesus had some choice words for the religious priests of his day that argued and stirred up trouble. Not much changes as the Jews were killing the Christians then the Christians were killing the Jews.
Having to justify genocide must be taxing....
I suspect you have heard all the apologetics regarding the command to kill em all. I would like to believe what we see is an example of man using God to justify the most horrific acts men are capable of. That would put me in a position of making Moses out to be as bad as Hitler or Stalin yet embraced by God. Adam, Abraham, Moses, Daniel were flawed men. The deception of the serpent to Eve that brought about the fall was “did God really say that”. Tonight I feel like moving away from the standard reply as to the Amalekites and suggest God did not really say that……but, I just hate to see the serpent win another round.
fred, increasing the rate of spin during your circular reasoning does not add value or credibility.
Please provide one factual piece of real evidence not from or based on The Babble. If you cannot do this,nsimplevthing, you have to admit you have nothing to base your cult's beliefs on, and therefore are mentally ill, a liar or both.
When you limit yourself to deny the truth in the Bible your logic becomes unbalanced.
I'm not an athiest, and I believe in God. Religion, however, is a farce created by the human mind. You can't speak of logic, you don't use it. If you did, you'd admit that your "truth", the bible, can't possibly be a universal truth intended for all of humanity, because not all of humanity has access to it, or will ever know about it. Simple logic. Passes straight over your head.
Think of all the people that have convinced themselves and others that whole groups of people are evil and deserve to be killed soley based on being born into that group....that is the company your god is in....that is what you are defending.
And in typical fred fashion, completely ignores my points when I point out his idiocy.
fred: "no, there is that line where belief no longer is founded on faith. The question seems to be why God has chosen faith as the basis of relationship rather than reason. Faith has to do with a sense outside the 5 senses used in reason and logic to verify events. "
And the logical answer to that for any rational person who observes human behavior and tendency is that man had to assign those parts of a belief system that are not provable to a concept (faith) so he could at least name what he was/is unable to defend. Take away those unprovable points of magic and you are left with a mildly entertaining set of stories, where the older the stories, the less credible they are even as a historical record.
Truth is not affected by what the audience hears or does not hear. Ignoring the minor religions Buddhism does not believe in a personal God and Christianity, Islam and Judaism believe God is more than simply love and establish accountability for actions and faith responses to God. I would agree with you that there is no universal religion and one is probably not possible given that religions are headed up by man and most are not led by God (not because of God but because of the nature of man). This is easy to see with the hard words Jesus had for the religions of his day and what those religions had become.
When I speak of Gods truth I am speaking about that which God says is good and right. God created the heavens and earth in Genesis 1 I consider truth. Abel gave his best for God while Cain gave some and God was pleased with Abel’s offering- I consider the truth here to be God wants us to be aware of the difference between a heart that truly loves God and one that does not. The core truths are repeated throughout the Bible in various ways so there can be no misunderstanding.
Enoch walked with the Lord and we are not told anything about his religion only that he walked with the Lord. In the same way we are not told what religion if any the criminal on the cross (Luke 23:39-43) had when Jesus took him to Paradise. So from the first to the last main characters in the Bible that get it right the key is the disposition of the heart (soul) towards God and not the specifics of their religion.
Now, this is not cause to reject Christ as that is a different issue.
As to your concerns that one who belongs with God for eternity may not have access to the truth such an occurrence goes against the truth of the Bible. Even Jesus said if you close up my words then the rocks will cry out the truth.
Man fred you're like a little kid. Read something you don't like, continue with other things and plug your ears.
How right you are. The only problem is that faith does exist and the amount of faith exercised will bring about results that are proportional to that faith. The effect of faith on physical matter can be measured and verified as well as those affected by faith exhibit consistent change that can be verified by empirical observation. The discussion then moves to cause and that is where we differ. I would say that God was behind the scene and the unbeliever would claim you cannot prove that. I am not sure one could find God based on reason alone as that is not logical in view of the faith based evidence.
0G-No gods, ghosts, goblins or ghouls
The inscription on a tablet found at Tel Dan, which dates to about 840 B.C.E., clearly mentions a "House of David."
Dead Sea Scrolls validate the Old Testament Books of the Bible were accurate.
Spider-Man takes place in New York. We know New York exists, therefore Spider-Man comics are accurate.
Up until the time the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered modern skeptics and or atheists pounded the mantra that the Old Testament was rewritten so many times by various writers that it not reliable. Many suggested that the Catholics or other hidden group edited the old to support the prophecies’ that were fulfilled. All chatter was put to rest in 1956 when the Dead Sea Scrolls validated the accuracy of the Old Testament.
The argument there never was a King David thus no line to Jesus was put to rest with the tablet found at Tel Dan.
Spiderman is manmade as were the gods of antiquity whereas God is not of manmade substance or matter known to man. You can see Spiderman without faith whereas without faith God is not visible to the eye.
You miss the point, as I knew you would, but my purpose was different.
I find it interesting that you will reply to that, but not to my post yesterday that called you out on refutable claims and science. Why is that fred?
@hawaiiguest…yes there is evidence to support M theory. My reference to M theory evidence related to proof of God verses the unknown first cause. Although M theory may someday support spontaneous creation (thus no God needed) it does not as of today.
Interesting backpedal, especially when yesterday you said
"When I toss out the Stephen Hawking M theory stuff as support you eat it up because it is just a theory without evidence."
And now you say M theory has evidence to support its validity, and you were talking about first cause arguments, which you were not.
Like I said, you're out of your depth in science talk, and you don't have as much practice as Chad at being dishonest, so don't try.
@hawaiiguest...I understood your point regarding Spiderman and there was some mild applause from the demons in the reality you claim does not exist. From what I can tell we are limited to this one reality that is observable. Believers actually have a relationship with God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. That is the reality. Simply because you will not take the necessary steps to see that reality does not mean it does not exist or that I am nuts………..and no, it is not the same as an invisible friend.
Ah yes, lock into a single part, make more assertions without evidence, and ignore the part where it was shown clearly that you not only didn't know what you were talking about, but attempted to be dishonest as well.
Like I've always said, and you've always run away from this, prove your assertions. I don't care how often you make the assertion you have a "personal relationship" with whatever you think is real, that doesn't make it true.
“I don't care how often you make the assertion you have a "personal relationship" with whatever you think is real, that doesn't make it true.”
=>have you seen the movie Big Fish? If so which reality is the true reality for the son that hated his father because his father lived in a different reality?
Belief and non belief is not that much different from the delusional mindset of the father and the son. Should we both die today I have spent the last few years in a personal relationship with God. I look forward to the promises that Abraham, Moses and all the Bible heros look towards and hope for right on down to John. I no longer hang out with self centered wild and crazy guys but with Christians on mission trips and with those in need in the local community. I have no regrets or longing to go back to the godless lifestyle and have never been happier or filled with such peace and assurance. This is my reality as I see it and live it out. It is my true reality and every bit as real as your reality and journey. The fact I will have lived and died in and with that reality closes the book on my existence on this earth.
Whatever my impact on others may have been during my lifetime is the real and true reality for them also regardless of what goes on between my ears. It does not matter if my thought process is logical, illogical or delusional your reality is still altered by it.
You have chosen to live a reality void of God and you are living out that reality. The fact you see the God believers have a personal relationship in a twisted manner that has no resemblance to the God they know and love does not change the truth of what they actually see and know. If you have ever been in love the object of your love can do no wrong and you cannot even see the blemishes. You would die for that person perhaps even worship that person. Would you propose we all only see others objectively and promptly bring it to their attention if there is a zit on their nose?
Ah more zeroing in and irrelevant tangents. Keep going fred, I'm sure you can continue to convince yourself you're right the more you say it.
@La Teia D. Shed
Let’s not overlook things. 'WITHOUT quoting the Bible' meant exactly that. I don’t want false references from a book written by delusional(s) to create delusional followers. I dont believe in brainwashing!
Bwain washington: It's been proven to work. You practice nutzoism? That works ,too.
Someone, please, explain/prove to me how your GOD is exists WITHOUT quoting the bible. I have tried believing, but it happens to be difficult for any educated human to believe in things that you cannot see.
First of all, the Bible has fulfilled prophecy. Look at the book of Daniel. It has prophecy about the rise and fall of kingdoms.
In regards to the bible fulfilling prophecies; so too does Nostradamus and The Mayan calendar so the proof of fulfilled prophecy is moot.
So too though, is the original question. By asking for proof AND refusing to hear reference to the bible you are remaining willfully ignorant. He and his followers have faith in him; if there was a tangible affect to point to as proof the need for religion and faith would cease to exist. By its very nature the lack of proof is needed to allow true believers to have faith in him. To ask for proof of existence whilst ignoring the bible is akin to asking for "the answer of 2+2 without the use of an addition symbol" It doesnt work, you need one to achieve understanding of the other.
LaTeia, prophecy is worthless without exact dates. Anyone can predict bad things will happen, and be almost certain to be right at some time in the future,since so much stuff happens.Either present a fulfilled prophecy that had exact dates in it, with events that later did happen on those events, or show some integrity by retracting any claims of "proof" of prophecy that you might be making.
Not only that, but the OP did specify no use of your bible. RTFP!
Have you ever seen with naked eyes (not photo) that the world is round? Yet you probably believe it right?
LaTeia, prophecy is worthless without exact dates. Anyone can predict bad things will happen, and be almost certain to be right at some time in the future,since so much stuff happens.Either present a fulfilled prophecy that had exact dates in it, with events that later did happen on those dates, or show some integrity by retracting any claims of "proof" of prophecy that you might be making.
Predicting that kingdoms will rise and fall is like predicting that there will be war then peace. The prediction doesn't mean a d@mn thing because that cycle has been repeated throughout all of human history. Now If you can find a prophesy that gives specific dates I'm interested.
well that makes sense. Thanks! :)
A person can use science to prove things, this cannot be said about the bible. With the proper training and tools you can prove that the Earth is a spheroid. It is not a circle as stated in the bible. Just another bible FAIL!
OH, and by the way, to have faith in God doesn't need a prrof that God exists since the definition of faith is:
faith [feyth] Show IPA
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
@ Al – Columbus knew the world was round even without seeing a photo of it. It's quite easy to deduce via observable measurements.
@Flawed – your argument only works if GOD requires faith. I don't know that's a stable assumption. God could / did "in theory" exist even when he showed himself to Adam. No faith was required, nor was a bible. Ergo – God and the worship of God (religion) do not require faith except that for the rest of us, God has not "Proven" himself. So I do think that the original question is perfectly valid.
What's the problem? God can hear you..........."Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground."
Please provide any verifiable evidence that your god exists.
good luck with that
It's called faith. But look around, there is no question that God exists.
@Joe: I am looking around..... for verifiable evidence........ because that is how one determines reality from fantasy.
Please try a little harder next time, or stay out of the deep end of the pool while the adults talk.
LOL You claim it's all about faith, but then imply looking around imparts knowledge, which would necessarily exclude faith. So which is it?
Joe looking around i see many gods/goddesses but not yours. your god is not nature, to have a god in nature you Christians call it Idolatry. i cant see your god because hes not here. but if your willing to admit the sun, the moon, or the earth are gods/goddesses i wont argue their existence, since their is nothing out side of nature your god is nothing but a thought, but that douse not make it any less of a god. just you cant look around and see it.
heaven, hell, and your god
is in your head
the Jewish/Christian/Muslim god exist only as a thought
my god is in the sky, i can see her. and so can you.
Please provide verifiable evidence that you don't work for the Beast, Eric.
@lol: You will need to first provide verifiable evidence that the "beast" exists. You are making a claim of existence. That claim requires evidencal support. That is how it works.
Also, bad form trying to dismiss a question with a invalid request.
With all the believers on here, why can't one of you just provide verifiable evidence that your god exists? If you could, it would help to make all of your other claims more viable. Without verified evidence that your god exists, all claims you make about it are illogical and pointless.
Please provide your verifiable evidence.
Definition of Irony: Believer in Jesus Christ as the literal Son of the Man in the Sky scolds others for living out their fantasies, and in the process attempts to define hers as Real.
You've just seen evidence for the existence of air pollution from ha25. God is Green.
what a bunch of hogwash. s.exual intercourse is a physical act driven by hormones. Spirituality (if you are in to that) is about an individual relationship with some diety or creed of choice.
Sex >> god
Sex >> gods
Sex >> religion
Sex is also bigger than Jesus. Much bigger.
It's definately more popular and i'd bet John Holmes was bigger...
Se x was a big part in the pagan religions that Christianity was rivals with, thus the loathing.
what they hate us because we have s3x, i always thought it was because we love our lives on earth, coincidentally the two are related; because we love this world we love each-other in it
there are "infallible words of god" supporting not only the gay lifestyle, but also that one should have lots of sex, paid and otherwise.
2 Corinthians 9:6 - The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.
Ecclesiastes 11:6 - In the morning sow your seed, and at evening withhold not your hand, for you do not know which will prosper, this or that, or whether both alike will be good.
Luke 8:11 - Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
Galatians - For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
2 Corinthians 9:12 - For the ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints but is also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God.
Acts 20:35 - In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
1 Corinthians 9:11 - If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?
(the above supports prostitution)
Now for the nitty-gritty of 21st century "love":: Only for those who care about practicing safe s-ex:
Before embarking on a search for some god and settling for se-x, an important life-saving, disease-elimination message:
The reality of se-x, abortion, contraception and STD/HIV control: – from an agnostic guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-
Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...
The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:
The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% actual failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% actual failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.
Added information before making your next move:
from the CDC-2006
"Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
Consumer Reports, January, 2012
"Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-
Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.
"Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (It should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)
Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.
The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":
– (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
– (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)
One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)
Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).
s.ex in the bible sure is sweet:
And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
– Genesis 38: 8 – 9
He pulled out. Fabulous.
This is an imminent concern. It could open up a Pax Romana for wombats. Lucky that the neo-Calvinists aren't even awake yet. The pseudo-Calvinists never really get their sticks on the ice though, so no real worries there.
It's not fully pseudo until the Greeks really run out of olives. Then we'll really see the substitutes get out on the pond, rusty skates or not.
Oooh. Cross-cultural mixed metaphors. Vegamite on falafel with liverwurst and beans. C'est délicieux! Kampei!
There is plenty of se x in the bible:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prost itute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.
don't forget the bible's favorite kind of s.ex - incest:
And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
– Genesis 19:33 – 36.
And now for the 21st century version of the Torah:
origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482 NY Times review and important enough to reiterate.
New Torah For Modern Minds
“Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. (prob•a•bly
Adverb: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell).
The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions - the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years - have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity - until now.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine doc-ument.
The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "LITANY OF DISILLUSION”' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel - not one shard of pottery."
And of course it's always good to kiII everyone in a town and take the young vir gins so that you can ra pe them anytime you want.
New International Version (NIV)
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Congratulations, "JP", your test was successful.
I suppose that depends on what JP was testing for.
Any hotel that gets rid of the gideon bible and puts in ANYTHING else is an hotel I'll patronize.
i'd rather see a comic book in the drawer than a bible.
booty: being a little redundant, aren't you?
I only look in hotel bibles to see if a stranger left me any cash. Most of the time not but I've been surprised a couple of times.
I only look in hotel bibles to see if a former guest hid any cash in there. Most of the time not but I've been surprised a couple of times.
I use them to wipe my a s s after I take a crap.
Hmmmm....is THAT why she always used to scream OH, god, oh god, oh, god....?
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.