I am an atheist thread 2

[zerinus]

You said ‘the bible is not unreasonable’ or ‘the bible is unreasonable’ or something. I need to know which bible you referred to if I am to make sense of this statement.

Unless of course you believe that all the bibles are equally reasonable or unreasonable.

Not quite. That is not how the conversation began. The conversation began by you stating the Bible is unreasonable. Which Bible were you using when you made that statement? I was responding to you with reference to the same Bible. When I stated that the Bible is reasonable, I was doing so with reference to the same Bible that had been using. What Bible were you using? Why did you use that particular Bible? Well, I was responding to you on the same logical basis that you had made your original statement. Therefore you questioning of “which Bible I am using” was just a cheap diversion tactic and a red herring, intended to divert the flow of the discussion away from where you were getting bogged down because you had no reasonable answers to what I had written.

You decided that the commandments and their consequences are no longer applicable. What you said was something like ‘they were needed, now I don’t need them’. Wasn’t it something like that?. Is the bible right here, or should we all listen to you instead?

I did no such thing. Don’t try to put words in my mouth. I said that the law that was given to Moses was appropriate to them, and the times and circumstances that they lived. It was right for them at that time. Jesus changed those laws and made them more appropriate the times and circumstances that He lived in. Both laws are found in the Bible. I did not invent those laws nor changed them. Both Moses and Jesus were representatives of God, and therefore both the original laws given to Moses, as well as the changed ones given by Jesus, came form God. I was merely pointing you to that fact, as a demonstration the laws given to Moses were not “unreasonable” as you had stated, but appropriate for the people, the times and circumstances in which they lived.

Don’t worry, zerinus, it is far from you alone who I doubt. Anyone who tries to tell me that the god of the whole universe wrote a book, then tells me I have to accept their revisions before understanding it gets a lot of distrust from me.

Rest assured that I don’t expect anything better from you. The “God of the whole universe” certainly did write a book; and you don’t have to accept “my revisions of it”. I go by the same Bible that you had been quoting form.

The book is more of an authority than you are, . . .

You bet it is. I never claimed otherwise. I was merely correcting your errors of it on the basis of the version of the Bible that you yourself had been quoting.

. . . or else it is just another book. I already know that it is just another book, . . .

You know no such thing. You have absolutely no way of knowing any such thing. You are merely guessing. It is your belief—hence your religion. Atheism is indeed your religion.

. . . but you have taken the position that it is much more than that. I am just trying to hold you to it.

You bet your life that I “take the position that it is much more that that”. The Bible is scripture, and the word of God; and you can “hold me to it” all you want. You won’t find me running away from that.

Just using the opportunity to show that you don’t want to mention which book, or address certain differences. I don’t blame you. If that was in my bible, I would be reluctant to admit it, too.

Don’t let’s get carried away too far. First of all, the book that you were now quoting form is the Book of Mormon, which is not the same thing as the Bible. They are two different books. The Book of Mormon is a book of sacred scripture that the Mormons believe in. Secondly, be assured that I consider myself greatly privileged to be a Mormon, and to believe in its sacred books. You will not find me running away form the Book of Mormon any more than I would from the Bible.

Don’t worry, I don’t think of your book as any more ridiculous than the KJV…or the books of scientology, or any of the many ‘holy books’ that various groups have claimed as divine over the world.

You can be assured that I didn’t expect anything better than that from you. However, know that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are both the word of God, and are equally true.

zerinus

 

[_A]

That a person “finds himself” in a certain condition need not entail that that person himself be aware of being in such a condition. In saying, therefore, that you find yourself excessively skeptical, embittered, and antagonistic toward people who are able to believe in God without much difficulty, I meant to be expressing a fact about you, which I was able to infer from your posts on this thread. That you do not understand yourself to be excessively skeptical, embittered, and antagonistic doesn’t surprise me, for I believe that *self-ignorance * is also symptomatic of a corrupt intellect.

I will thank you to stop with the personal attacks here. If you wish to demonstrate that I have a ‘corrupt intellect’, fine, but just saying so is an unfounded personal attack and nothing more.

I did not intend to personally attack you, and I am sorry if you misunderstood my meaning.

That is all you have done. With nothing more than your faith (which, I might add, is impossible to distinguish from illusion) you come here saying that I have a ‘corrupt intellect’.
I would like you to forget telling me how bad you think I am, and just make clear to everyone here how you tell the difference between your faith and an hallucination of faith.
If you, like so many others here, have no way of telling, I will try to refrain from calling your ‘intellect corrupt’.

 

[_A]

Absolutely. Including me and most Catholics I know. There is no sky-bully in my life.

You are threatened with eternal torture if you screw up, and offered eternal rewards if you get it right. If you truly believe that, then there is no way that you can say there is no sky-bully in your life. I know the term I choose is not pleasant to you, but your ‘guy in the sky’ is definitely threatening you.

 

[_A]

What I’m resistant to is you telling me what’s going through my mind or what I’m experiencing.

I would say that optical illusions are in a category on their own. You see them and carry on with your day. Voices, I think, would have a bit more of an effect on someone.

Yes, I’ve seen the picture before. I see Him once a week, too.

I have demonstrated a visual hallucination. There are auditory ones, as well. In fact, there are ‘dreams’ which most of us humans have which are quite convincing auditory and visual hallucinations.
The fact that you don’t dream is simply an oddity, but as you pointed out, you do see the effects of an illusion.
You say that you see them and carry on. What if you didn’t recognize it as an hallucination? That is what my point is.
You can claim all you like that your perceptions are not ever incorrect, but I think anyone who has experience using human eyes, ears and brain will know how true this is.

 

[_A]

Why are there so many conflicting scientific theories and reports?

I can’t answer such a general question. Do you have a specific conflict which you would like to examine?

 

[zerinus]

So because you have personally assessed that the world is too tough to stick to those laws, you are going to stop adhering to parts of the bible? Good thing it was only a book of suggestions, huh?

It was not “a book of suggestions”. As I explained above, the law was changed by God, not man. The old laws were appropriate to the times and people to whom it was given. The new laws were appropriate to the changed times and circumstances. I neither invented the old laws, nor changed them to the new ones. God did both, and they are both found in the same Bible.

Oh, well, since it was a long time ago, I will wait for a new book. The old one has obviously expired.

There was a “new book”. What do you think Old Testament and New Testament means?

How long are they good for?

For as long as God wants them to be. Have you not read in the Bible how a time will come when God will make “all things new”?

Revelation 21:

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

That includes “new laws”.

zerinus

 

[_A]

Someone with faith can pray for someone’s eternal soul.

I, without faith, could pray also. Noone would be able to tell the difference between the effects of my prayer, and the prayers of a faithful, either.
Want to test it? With rigor?

 

[_A]

Therefore you questioning of “which Bible I am using” was just a cheap diversion tactic and a red herring, intended to divert the flow of the discussion away from where you were getting bogged down because you had no reasonable answers to what I had written.

I want you to say exactly which bible is it that you think is so reasonable. No matter, you have admitted that it is the book of Mormon, and some vague bible. I would focus on how unreasonable the book of Mormon was, but when I asked you to discuss a quote, you refused. In fact, you seemed a little embarrassed. If I am mistaken, please, go back, find that reference, and let’s discuss it.

I did no such thing. Don’t try to put words in my mouth. I said that the law that was given to Moses was appropriate to them, and the times and circumstances that they lived. It was right for them at that time.So some guy comes, gets popular, and you decide that he is right, so you toss the OT in favour of his new book. Well, I have just gone one book further. I have seen the utility of the NT decrease as the years go by, so I go with no book now.
It is the new, correct bible.
zerinus;3095861:

Rest assured that I don’t expect anything better from you. The “God of the whole universe” certainly did write a book; and you don’t have to accept “my revisions of it”. I go by the same Bible that you had been quoting form.

I would settle for you being willing to discuss that ‘reasonable’ quote from Nephi which I mentioned earlier. Remember, you said ‘it says what is says’ because you were too embarrassed to repeat it. Probably it is a verse which points directly at how reasonable your book is.

You know

no such thing. You have absolutely no way of knowing any such thing. You are merely guessing. It is your belief—hence your religion. Atheism is indeed your religion.The evidence that I have suggesting that it is just another book is overwhelming. If you have some evidence that it is not, then we simply need to define ‘regular book’ and see where your holy books do not meet that definition.
Go ahead, I will be glad to look at this subject with you.

You bet your life that I “take the position that it is much more that that”. The Bible is scripture, and the word of God; and you can “hold me to it” all you want. You won’t find me running away from that.

If it is true, what you say, then this ‘Yahweh’ fellow made a hell to torture souls in, then made souls just for the purpose of torturing them in his hell.
If Yahweh is omnipotent, omniscient and infallible, you have no way to argue, except to change Yahweh’s characteristics.

Don’t let’s get carried away too far. First of all, the book that you were now quoting form is the Book of Mormon, which is not the same thing as the Bible. They are two different books. The Book of Mormon is a book of sacred scripture that the Mormons believe in. Secondly, be assured that I consider myself greatly privileged to be a Mormon, and to believe in its sacred books. You will not find me running away form the Book of Mormon any more than I would from the Bible.

So why were you afraid to discuss that quote I mentioned?

You can be assured that I didn’t expect anything better than that from you. However, know that the Bible and the Book of Mormon are both the word of God, and are equally true.

zerinus

I can accept that they are equally true if you like, but that doesn’t say anything good about the book of mormon. You just a few posts ago said that the 10 commandments were not applicable anymore…or the stated penalties were not…no matter, you decided with no evidence that they didn’t apply to this new time.

 

[_A]

It was not “a book of suggestions”. As I explained above, the law was changed by God, not man. The old laws were appropriate to the times and people to whom it was given. The new laws were appropriate to the changed times and circumstances. I neither invented the old laws, nor changed them to the new ones. God did both, and they are both found in the same Bible.

I can show where is looks like the law should stay just the way it was.
Luke 16:17
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

How many commandments in a ‘tittle’?

There was a “new book”. What do you think Old Testament and New Testament means?

I think it means that the OT was too clearly horrible, so Yahweh needed a PR makeover.

For as long as God wants them to be. Have you not read in the Bible how a time will come when God will make “all things new”?

Do you think it is OK for you to just decide to disregard the penalties of the old testament? Where do you get this authority?

That includes “new laws”.

According to you. It looks an awful lot like this ‘Luke’ fellow disagrees with you. Who should I believe?

 

[zerinus]

I want you to say exactly which bible is it that you think is so reasonable. No matter, you have admitted that it is the book of Mormon, and some vague bible. I would focus on how unreasonable the book of Mormon was, but when I asked you to discuss a quote, you refused. In fact, you seemed a little embarrassed.

I think that you chose to reply to this post too quickly. You will be embarrassed when you read it again tomorrow. Actually, I would have been deeply embarrassed if I had written any of the replies that you have so far written to me.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Do you think it is OK for you to just decide to disregard the penalties of the old testament? Where do you get this authority?

Your embarrassment keeps getting deeper and deeper. Are you always in the habit of writing first and thinking later; or is your thinking impaired altogether, under all circumstances?

zerinus

 

[_A]

I think that you chose to reply to this post too quickly. You will be embarrassed when you read it again tomorrow. Actually, I would have been deeply embarrassed if I had written any of the replies that you have so far written to me.

zerinus

I am not embarrassed. I still notice you have not been willing to discuss that reasonable part of the BoM that I mentioned. I understand your being afraid, though. It’s pretty embarrassing.

 

[zerinus]

I am not embarrassed. I still notice you have not been willing to discuss that reasonable part of the BoM that I mentioned. I understand your being afraid, though. It’s pretty embarrassing.

When you have decided to give reasonable answerers to what I had said before, instead of dodging them with diversion tactics and red herrings, I will discuss this verse with you also. This verse has nothing to do with what we had been discussing. It was merely one of your diversions and red herrings to avoid having to admit the obvious. Those tricks don’t work with me, I am afraid. I have been debating on these boards longer than you have been.

zerinus

 

[_A]

When you have decided to give reasonable answerers to what I had said before, instead of dodging them with diversion tactics and red herrings, I will discuss this verse with you also. This verse has nothing to do with what we had been discussing. It was merely one of your diversions and red herrings to avoid having to admit the obvious. Those tricks don’t work with me, I am afraid. I have been debating on these boards longer than you have been.

zerinus

I raised that point because it is an example of the book of mormon being unreasonable.

You can refuse to discuss it all you like. That makes my point equally well.

Bye zerinus.

 

[_A]

I noticed that zerinus (among others) seems to think it is OK to listen to the NT over the OT. I would like to remind you all…
Matthew 5:18-19 - Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.

Deuteronomy 11:1 Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always.

Chronicles 16:15 Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations … an everlasting covenant.

Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Deuteronomy 11: 26-28 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God.

Now, I don’t know about you, but any book with such firm language about the permanence of the ‘covenant’ and the commandments is being crystal clear.

zerinus, if you think it is OK to disregard the rules of the OT, or say that they don’t apply to you or to this time, I suggest that you have not read your bible very carefully.
I hope these quotes help you to understand.

 

[zerinus]

I noticed that zerinus (among others) seems to think it is OK to listen to the NT over the OT. I would like to remind you all…

---

zerinus, if you think it is OK to disregard the rules of the OT, or say that they don’t apply to you or to this time, I suggest that you have not read your bible very carefully.
I hope these quotes help you to understand.

First of all, I never said that “it is OK to listen to the NT over the OT”. Neither did I say that “it is OK to disregard the rules of the OT”. I did, however, say that Jesus changed many of the laws of the OT in the NT, so that they were no longer applicable to the NT period. If you don’t know that, then it is you that have “not read your Bible very carefully”. Here are some passages for you to consider. First, some passages from the words of Jesus Himself:

Matthew 5:

21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: . . .

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

---

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all;

---

37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

As you can see, the law was changed. In some respect it was made harder and more difficult to follow, and in other respects it was made easier.

As we move on further into the church history, after the death and resurrection of the Savior, and when the church began to be established more fully among the Gentiles, we come across further examples of the change of the law. For example, in those early days there were many Jewish converts to Christianity who had been accustomed to living under the strict laws of Moses, which was very ritualistic; and they believed that they should still continue to live under those laws, end even teach the Gentile converts to do the same. This led to a great debate and controversy in the church which was so serious that a council of the Twelve Apostles was called to resolve it; and the decision that the Apostles made was that it was not necessary for the Christians any longer to adhere to those strict ritualistic laws (the most important of which was circumcision).

This is a long story which cannot be told in a short time; but to be brief, this is the decision that the Twelve Apostles made at that council: Acts 15:6–29.

zerinus

 

[_A]

zerinus, you have been rudely refusing to discuss a quote from your holy book. What makes you think that I am going to indulge you further?
_A_:

You can refuse to discuss it all you like. That makes my point equally well.

Bye zerinus.

 

[justinthemartyr]

you are not an athiest. you are an agnostic, as you do not believe in the non existence of God.

 

[zerinus]

zerinus, you have been rudely refusing to discuss a quote from your holy book. What makes you think that I am going to indulge you further?

:yawn:

zerinus

 

[_A]

you are not an athiest. you are an agnostic, as you do not believe in the non existence of God.

I don’t believe in the theory of gravitation, either.

That doesn’t mean that I don’t accept it as the best working theory.

Religion has only vague, nebulous theories remaining. Every bit of it that can be disproved by now has been disproved.

I am an atheist. I do not believe. When speaking specifically of Yahweh (or Jehova, or whatever the current term is for the abrahamic god) I know that it is false.

All a person has to do to see that is to read the bible critically.