Is god worthy of worship (or 'Why I'm not a christian')

[iGuest 3]

As I said, there's no problem, as long as you keep the flame low (or even inexistant)...I'm counting on you, Master Members, to call me if anything's wrong here...

[iGuest 3]

foam trucks standing by captain

[iGuest 3]

not sure what you mean (drumbytes) ^^maybe- fire trucks with foam fire retardant.. A Guess..

[iGuest 3]

oops, it's actually called a crash truck :oops:

[iGuest 3]

lots and lots and lots of words here but they seem mostly OK with each otherjust want to note that words don't go too far with animist peoples
we believe personal experience of nature and the world is the best teacher of spiritual things

I sort of agree with you

Personal experience is the only thing which we can actually use to justify beliefs - everything else is subject to someone elses perception, and is fallible... even 'logic', because everyone believes in a slightly different definition of what is logical.

I'm a Christian cos of my personal experiences.

[iGuest 3]

i now need to wonder if i should have mentioned that about 10 years ago, i was christian, had found god, and was saved.

Could i ask some questions?
1) what changed your mind?
2) if it was a subtle change of heart against God, has your disbelief of him grown rapidly since? if so, why?

1) like all good christians are supposed to do, i studied the bible.
2) i dont think "subtle" is a very accurate description. i would say it was more like a Louisville Slugger to the head. if you read my opening post, thats a brief essay of why

[iGuest 3]

i now need to wonder if i should have mentioned that about 10 years ago, i was christian, had found god, and was saved.

Could i ask some questions?
1) what changed your mind?
2) if it was a subtle change of heart against God, has your disbelief of him grown rapidly since? if so, why?

1) like all good christians are supposed to do, i studied the bible.
2) i dont think "subtle" is a very accurate description. i would say it was more like a Louisville Slugger to the head. if you read my opening post, thats a brief essay of why

Ok

note that i did say 'if' on number 2.

And the critiques you offered in your opening post arnt sufficient for me personally to change my position. Therefore i feel that my current understanding of Christianity must be deeper than yours was, if yours was shaken by what you have written in your post.

I study the bible often, indeed, am about to spend the next 5 years doing so as my primary concern, on top of what i already have done.

I take nothing that is written as truth without researching it. As such, if i find a possible contradiction, i will go and look at atheistic and Christian forums until i have a valid understanding of the text.

For such a clear friendship as i have with God to be cut away requires far more than that which you mentioned in your post - which i have read, and have studied countless similar but am still convinced that my God is real. I have found every 'contradiction' i have researched has held a valid explanation, though admittedly there are some i have not researched - i am only human.

Being a Christian is about knowing Jesus Christ as lord of your life in a 2 way relationship with him. He is not a distant God, but a highly personal one. - that relationship is all the proof you really need, cos if its real and i have found it is, then it constantly displays itself through miracle after miracle.

[Joshua 0]

Welbis gave some excellent replies but I'd still like to expound on the matter a bit further:

This essay was inspired by the consistent assumption of Christians that if I believed the Bible were true, I would become a Christian. There are several reasons for my non-christianism, the leading of which is the idea of a higher power is not probable in light of current scientific data.

I assume you are referring to evolution? There is both macroevolution and microevolution. Macro is the unproven belief that everything came from nothing which violates the Law of Biogenesis since all life must come from life. Micro has been proven as with Darwin's finches that small changes occur within species, they adapt. Macro was cleverly snuck in and proclaimed fact when micro was and people commonly confuse the 2. Evolutionists have been struggling to find transitional forms, missing links, and new dating methods to support their pet theory that everything came from dirt rather then God, in vain.

 

The second of which is I do not find the state of the world in accordance with an idea of a loving and merciful higher power. Then of course there is the factor that the basis of this essay shall be about; I do not find the Biblical God fit for worship. Over the course of this essay there will be some times when I will speak as if I believe the Bible, when in fact I do not.

I plan to examine the Bible with critical inquiry. This essay will not be based upon scientific facts and how they disprove the Bible. It shall be an application of my emotions regarding compassion, love, mercy, patience, and justice. I hope to explain more clearly why the God depicted in the Bible violates my idea of a moral being. This shall be done over a series of topics. Each pointing out how Jehovah is undeserving of my worship. I will utilize Biblical verses to support my claim as well as what I consider to be logical reasoning.

Now would be the time to ask you to please take out your bibles for consultation. (I personally prefer the N.I.V. or K.J.V.) I will only cite the verse and a brief over view. I do not have the space to write out the verse in its entirety. I especially dont wish to spew out so much information that I run the risk of overloading those people who dislike reading. (Funny confliction here, isnt it? We are online, in a purely textual world, and people still have the audacity to complain about reading.) In the case that you dislike reading online essays, I recommend you print this out and thumb through it at your convenience.

Well, I happen to love reading

 

Hell:

Hell, of course, is the mother of all of my problems with the bible. It is perhaps the most despicable and hideous of all of the Christian gods crimes. Indeed, the cruelest of all concentration camps. (Certainly far worse than the ones created by the Nazis.) Described biblically as the lake of fire, the place of eternal torment with weeping and gnashing of teeth Jesus said in Mark 9:42-48 That it is better to commit suicide or self maiming then to be delivered unto hell.

All correct. It's good to see you are indeed searching the Scriptures to see what they say.

 

So, according to the bible I assume that all here can agree that there is an existence of hell, and that hell is the worst of all circumstance. Knowing this, let me indulge you as to why the existence of hell paints the Christian god as not fit for worshiping.

I am a moderately compassionate individual, rational, moral, and nurturing. Most of all I am a creator, a father. I propose this to you, a human question. Can all here, Christian or atheist, safely say that if there is a god, he is our greatest thought magnified? Whatever emotion we feel as human, being created in his image, god is infinitely more feeling? For he is the creator of all things created, I believe this concept is pretty safe to assume. With this being so, my love for my son must be a fraction of gods love for his children.

The thing you are missing however is that as the Scripture says, our sins have separated us from God:

 

Isaiah 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

 

Without Christ we are His enemies:

 

Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

 

Until we are saved God is not our Father. You will see here who is:

 

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

Just before this, Christ says:

 

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

 

 

Speaking as a father, I can safely say that if my child were to commit the greatest harm upon me tomorrow, I would never wish her harm. Why? Simply because he is my creation.

If my son were to maim me, slander me, etc. I would still love him, for my instinct and emotion demands of me to protect and care for him regardless of his actions, much like all rational beings (animal kingdom included). So now I pose the question, why then would god condemn us to hell for something as menial as lack of faith? If he is not infinitely more so loving then me, why would hell even exist? Any true loving being would never condemn his own children to everlasting torment, especially one that proclaims himself to having the very essence of forgiveness.

I was going to speak of justice but will answer that for the next section.

 

But God Is Just You Claim:

Most Christians have responded to this statement with the following rationalization. God can not let all of his creations into heaven because he is just. I ask in rebuttal to this, since when is justice more important than love in the heart of a parent? Is hell even justice, or is it simply cruel and unusual punishment? The bible states the system of justice very simply. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. There is also another variation of that system with the biblical verse eye for an eye. The Christian god violates his own system of law when he damns his creations to eternal suffering for sins as menial as theft or blasphemy. I hardly think, nor would any logical person, that throwing someone into a gnashing jaw would be justly befitting of nearly any crime. (With the exception of murder, and even so, eternal punishment is pretty excessive.)

Most courts of law would take custody of your child from you just for an excessive spanking. We as a people enacted these laws, for we thought them to be logical. Is god above logic, or what we deem as compassionate behavior? After all he pitches a majority of his children into a lake of fire and brimstone. How many of us would want a parent such as that? Anyone of us would immediately sever our ties with such an abusive person. Yet Christians knowingly continue the insanity of giving worship to a god so cruel!

God is perfect in every sense of the word, He is both perfectly loving, and perfectly just. Being righteous He can not tolerate or waffle on evil and rebellion or He would no longer be perfect. That we without God are the children of the devil is clear for left alone the world turns to the most foul depravities one can think of. Without the governments God permits no order exists and man turns to the desires of His heart. You see, God knows our hearts, we are guilty not only of what we have done but what we would do if we could get away with it. How many times would you have done the unspeakable if restrictions in life had not disallowed it? Our own conscience bear us witness for what we are within if we only listen to them.

 

1 Samuel 16:7 But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

 

The true story is often given of a just judge in California when a girl was brought into the court for speeding. Being just he had to bring the gavel down and fine her. But the judge ironically was her father and stepping down he took out his wallet and paid the fine for her. God being perfectly just has to pronounce the sentence, being perfectly loving He paid the fine for us, if we'll only accept it. He sent HIS only begotten Son to us and guess what we did? We killed Him. The whole rotten race of man crucified their Saviour. God always had only one begotten Son, not adopted as we are into His family when accepting Christ as His Saviour. He sent that Son to die for us and when we reject Him we place ourselves on the same side as those who crucified Him. We too are guilty. And our sins placed Him there, on that cross. The Father sent His beloved, here is the parable for you to read:

 

Luke 20:9 Then began he to speak to the people this parable; A certain man planted a vineyard, and let it forth to husbandmen, and went into a far country for a long time.

10 And at the season he sent a servant to the husbandmen, that they should give him of the fruit of the vineyard: but the husbandmen beat him, and sent him away empty.

11 And again he sent another servant: and they beat him also, and entreated him shamefully, and sent him away empty.

12 And again he sent a third: and they wounded him also, and cast him out.

13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.

14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come, let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.

15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?

16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.

 

 

Free Will, You Say?

It is also written that I was given free will with which to choose if I will go to hell or not. How can you possibly deem something free when you must fear consequences? That completely conflicts with the definition of free. If I were to hold a gun to your head and say you have free will to not give me your wallet, but if you attempt to defy me I will kill you. Does it really feel as if you have a choice in the matter? Of course not. Free means to give or receive something with out an expectation of return. The whole free will concept is self defeating. Call it Circumstantial Will, for that is what it truly is.

Despite this, I have still had the displeasure of debating with those Christians who accept hell as a rational and fair wrath of god. They defend Jehovahs creation of hell with the opinion that those who are committed to hell go voluntary, as if it is a consequence rather then a punishment. That indeed, we as children of god, chose rather to be hells inmates then gods disciples in heaven. Its an interesting idea. However, you dont have to hurt anyone to get into Hell. All it takes, according to Scripture, is knowing about Jesus and not accepting him as Savior. It doesnt matter how virtuous you are, how much good you do, how happy an environment you create for others. Given this, the voluntary entry argument doesnt make sense. The same argument could be used to justify the sending of Aryan opponents of Nazism to concentration camps: they voluntarily chose not to give homage to Hitler, so they chose to be interred. Why should we blame the Nazis for the inmates choice? Why should we blame god for the choice of the damned?

If you are on death row and someone offers to take your place, don't you then have free will? We've been given the free will not to sin but none of mankind will ever do it, and thus must suffer the penalty for sin:

 

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

God will judge us according to our works and our punishment will be determined thereby. However, eternal life to dwell with God is not a right but a privilege, and one we automatically exempt ourselves from by sin, which is equated to rebellion against God.

 

As for bowing the knee to Hitler, they chose not to worship him believing him unworthy. With God His power and majesty will be such that every knee will bow to Him, whether out of awe or God's power I know not.

 

Philippians 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

 

Genocide:

I hear a lot from Christians about Gods infinite compassion and mercy.

Instead of harping on me about something so unapparent, they should go tell it to the Midianites. (Please open your bibles to Numbers 3:1) The following verses are a classic example of wholesale slaughter and rape under the direction of the same god they claim to be so merciful. A quick sample of this tale: On the way to the promised land, God had Moses wage a war campaign against the Midian. Moses was told to put every Medianite to death, plunder anything of value, set fire to their towns where they lived and all their encampments. Moses gave the orders to his troops (the sons of Israel) and went on a further campaign. On the return of his troops Moses was enraged with the commanders of the army. He said, Why have you spared the life of all the women and children? You are to kill all the children and kill all the women who have slept with a man. The lord says spare the lives only of the young girls who have not slept with a man, and take them for yourselves, so that we may multiply into a great nation. Yes, friends, this is biblical infinite mercy and compassion for you. I particularly like the way that Moses got upset with them for sparing women and male children, but allowed the young girls to be kept for later raping.

I have had some Christians proclaim that these Medianite girls were not taken for raping but marriage. How ridiculous! If you continue further in the scripture you will find that marriage to a Medianite was a crime against god. A man named Zimri, broke the law and married a Medianite woman this angered god so he sent a plague among the Hebrews. Fortunately, a zealous son of Israel speared Zimri right through the genitals, and the plague went away. So now I ask you, if you could not marry a Medianite, just what were these virgin woman who were to help multiply good for?

 

I've heard this brought up before, and as you'll notice in Numbers 31 that was of Moses' judgement that they had rebelled against God, the Lord speaking in 31:25-29 says no such thing. You are assuming that because Moses said to do it God condoned it. However, as seen here, Moses gave divorce as a commandment because he gave in to what his people wanted, not because God wanted it. I would assume there was some pressure on Moses in this case as well and since nowhere in the Bible does God say to have women raped it was simply Moses giving into pressure.

 

Matthew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

 

 

I dont think the first born in Egypt during the captivity would have agreed with the verdict of compassion and mercy either. (Exodus 11:5 & 12:29) First of all, Jehovah is the one who purposely hardened the heart of the Pharaoh so that he would not let Moses and the Jews go. God messed with someones free will. God could have even teleported the Jews out of captivity without bloodshed, or put the Egyptians to sleep while they left, but no. God decided to set up a situation in which he knew he would have to punish the Pharaoh. Though this he didnt even do. He punished the children instead. Judging from gods previous actions, killing innocent children is much more his forte.

Hmm... that children being killed for the parents was not normally permitted since the Law commanded Israelites not to do so:

 

Deuteronomy 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

 

Maybe you won't like this, but the absolute answers to your questions concerning this lie herein:

 

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

 

One interesting thing to notice is that God often refers to whole nations as entities or as one person, and pronounced judgment upon all, I'd expect that the case with Pharaoh. To be perfectly honest with you this is one case I don't know how God works with, perhaps because the lusts of their fathers they would do, the Egyptian children would've grown up to garner even more punishment to themselves which dying before birth they would be exempt from or perhaps that was simply their appointed time as determined solely by God since time and chance happens to all, perhaps it has to do with God's judging and referring to whole nations as one person or entity. The verses however I have given you pertaining to the subject and you can express your thoughts on them and then we can look further into them if you wish.

 

 

Lastly, please attempt to read the entire book of Joshua some evening. It is a long sequence of atrocities. I have not given all these quotes for space reasons. I urge you to look them up for yourself. Especially for Christians who are not familiar with the bible. It will leave you not only shocked and in question of just what you are worshiping, but it will give a new definition to all morality you claimed was a derivative of god. If by some chance you read Joshua and you are still compliant with the loving notion of god, I suggest you re evaluate your code of ethics.

Here is the place I will now speak of common rationalizations used for this slaughter. I have discovered via my discussions that there are two major forms: the corruption argument and the mercy argument. The former says that those slaughtered were evil and deserving of their fate; the latter says that since they were religiously incorrect, it was a mercy to terminate their existence.

The corruption argument simply does not hold up. The people slaughtered in the Old Testament were almost uniformly blameless (with a few exceptions, of course for instance, the Sodomites violated the conventions of hospitality.) Usually, no justification is offered beyond the fact that since they were of another tribe, it was OK to kill them. It goes with out saying that the hordes of slaughtered children were innocent. (*quick tip-If god was anti abortion he wouldnt have ordered the murder of pregnant women and young children.)

As to the mercy argument: If I dont claim to be suffering, and dont ask to die, neither you nor any god has the right to decide that you know better. (This would of course be a violation of my free will.) If a person tried to do this to me, I would quite frankly attempt to kill him; if a god tried, well, the only weapon I would have would be withholding my worship. Are you beginning to see why I do not comply with the worship of the Christian god?

I'm surprised you missed the big thing with the nations from that area, child sacrifice. It speaks constantly of them as worshippers of Baal, Molech, etc.. so that the people in worship "made their children to pass through the fire", a great abomination in God's eyes for which He destroyed whole nations, and when Israel followed the example of those nations God punished them greatly, the whole Old Testament tells the story of their punishments for doing so.

 

Neglect:

Most of us, given omnipotence, would be able to do a far better job than Jehovah. What would you do if given omnipotence? If your answer is anything other than abolish world hunger, disease or save the earth, theres something more than a little skewed in your perception of mankind. There is no question that the very balance of life is in peril. To wish for these things doesnt take infinite mercy, just normal compassion and a bit of common sense. Gods supposed infinite mercy is apparently the same thing as no mercy at all.

What makes this particularly unforgivable is that even Jesus own standards demand feeding of the poor. See Matthew 25:35, in which it is stated that the blessed feed the hungry, and that the damned do not. I find it funny that god is held blameless, though, for not feeding them. Does not the old saying practice what you preach apply to god? Is his lack of action a hypocrisy or a sin? Could it perhaps be both?

Usually, when I bring this up in a discussion, someone says, No. It is the evil of men that is to blame; they have lots of money and keep it to themselves rather than feeding the poor. (Funny thing that the Christians who say this are usually conservative) This argument uses a double standard. Men are held guilty for not feeding the poor, while God is held innocent for doing exactly the same. In fact, it would be far easier for god to feed all the poor with his omnipotence, than for any mortal man to feed even one! Mankind is certainly not blameless here, but it is Jehovah who is the true villain.

Another popular rationalization is that life without challenges would be boring and dehumanizing, so god does not remove them. The fallacy here is grouping all challenges together. I personally lead a very challenging and satisfying life, but I have not lately had to flee any volcanoes or earthquakes, go without food for a week, or suffer the ravages of some disease. I would be quite happy, in fact, if I never do have to face such challenges as those. There is plenty of room for amelioration of the human condition without making it dull. Does it not defeat the purpose of living life if you are to starve to death?

God chose to use Israel as the refuge for those who did choose to worship Him. But as always His pattern, they first had to choose to come to Him. There are several cases in the Old Testament of non-Jews becoming Jews by coming to Israel but many did not precisely because they didn't want to worship any but their idols. For those who should choose God's way of governing He commanded Israel to provide a means for the feeding of all:

 

Leviticus 19:9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleanings of thy harvest.

10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.

 

Death and suffering are the results of sin, or rebellion against God. Death did not come into the world until Adam rebelled against God.

 

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

 

Remember Adam's punishment in the garden, the suffering and toil to be his and how the earth would begin to work against him? By mankind's disobedience to God they brought suffering and pain upon themselves, Christ came that we might be freed from those consequences and be a part of the coming kingdom which will be without such things. You could say mankind ruined the first perfect world God made so He will just make another one where mankind can't ruin it since those who will be a part of it will already have their sins paid for and thus can't bring the consequences of sin into the kingdom.

 

 

Faith Is Required To Know God:

Suppose you were an omnipotent god, and you demand worship, such as the Christian god. Would you give proof of your existence to those who wished to follow you? I imagine for Jehovah that it would be quite simple to perform a continual sequence of verifiable miracles. It would be quite logical in practice too, for it would keep gods followers from delusion and doubt. There is no such luck with Jehovah though. He demands absolute fidelity without any demonstration of his existence. The only so called record of his existence is the bible. I think it pretty much goes with out saying that not only is the bible 2,000 years out dated, but it is also very unoriginal. Any Christian who proposes that the bible is indeed evidence for gods existence is proposing a double standard. For there are many books which claim to be actual accounts of a higher power. With this in mind, why not believe in Allah from the Quarun? Could it be because your faith is what determines your belief and not your so called factual book?

Lets examine what faith is. The definition of faith is hope for a circumstance or thing that is not proven to be true. There is no virtue in accepting something on faith, since it may very well be false, and it is clearly not virtuous to believe the false. Faith has also been proven through out history, time and again, that it is equivalent to massive hysteria; IE: Crusades, Burning Times, Inquisitions, Holy Wars, etc. On a grand scale faith, thus far, has only proven to be an intellectual weakness, and a significant barrier to scientific and moral progress. With all of this in mind, how can god possibly expect us to view faith as the greatest way to glorify him, let alone demand this of us?

Most importantly, the point to remember here is that if we dont believe in him, we go to Hell, and this is a greater evil than a lack of the virtue of faith or a stunting of science, or anything else conceivable. If god is truly concerned about the good, he will do what he can to keep us from Hell, and withholding vital information from us is the exact opposite of this.

Faith is a most logical stepping stone since:

 

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

 

And faith is not hope, faith is belief, which can come from absolute facts as well. The devils James says believe in one God as well, and they tremble, but that kind of faith is dead and isn't enough to save. Just believing there's one God, or intellectual orthodoxy is a kind of faith, but it's not enough.

 

God has provided not only His Word but the Holy Spirit who works in the lives of people as their lives themselves are a testimony to others of how Christ can change lives. And you mention other books, but what others claim to be utterly without flaw or fault? And how easily can mistakes be found in them? God has done what needs to be done to keep us from Hell by paying the price for our sins.

 

Faith is simply strong belief in something, belief in "evolution" or macroevolution is nothing more then a kind of faith, like it or not. If you look at history I think you'll find it interesting how some of those persecuted by those causing the witch trials, Inquisition, Crusades, etc... were actually those who lived the Gospel more then their attackers, like the Anabaptists.

 

 

God Is The Creator Of Evil:

I am frustrated at two specific verses in the bible, which applies to this particular topic. The first is the biblical statement that god is the Alpha and the Omega. Loosely defined it means the beginning and the end, the all knowing. Which of course implies that all of his actions and the results are fore known to him. I have a real problem with this notion. For if god was to know ahead of time that someday he would send me to hell for being a non-christian, I ask what was the purpose in him creating me in the first place? Was it simply to watch me be tortured? That seems to be the most logical explanation. I can think of no other rational explanation, nor neither has any Christian who I posed this question to. Some people have attempted to tell me that god has a purpose unknown to us, and that we must simply accept his will. Would you keep a friend who commits evil and offers no self-justification or remorse? Of course not, so why is this same judgment not applied to god? Its seems rather contradictory that this trait is despised in humanity, yet, it is worshiped in religion.

Secondly, I want to reinforce the fact that god is indeed the creator of evil. Please read verse Isaiah 45:7. I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things. The Christian god outright claims that he is indeed the source of evil. So how can he then claim to be sinless?

My Scofield has the following on Isaiah 45:7:

 

1(45:7) God is not the author of sin (Hab. 1:13; 2 Tim. 2:13; Ti. 1:2; Jas. 1:13; 1 Jn. 1:5). One of the meanings for the Hebrew word ra carries the idea of adversity or calamity, and it is evidently so employed here. God has made sorrow and wretchedness to be the sure fruits of sin.

 

If you look at Christ He first had to perceive what was in the minds of the Pharisees, and while He looked into the future as easily as we look into the past, it seems He first had to look. I've heard this brought up about free will before. The Bible uses the word omnipotent but not omniscient. The question then becomes does God knowing all things first have to examine that knowledge to know it or make use of it? Does He first have to examine it or look at that area of the future to see it? Interesting question I think. You say Alpha and Omega or beginning and ending means All-Knowing, and God does have all knowledge, the question is whether He acknowledges or uses it all simultaneously and whether He must first examine it to know it, having all knowledge is different from knowing all knowledge....

 

 

To be more specific, lets talk about the lords creation of evil, lets talk about the conception of Satan. This being was created and unleashed by god. Jehovah knew (for he is the all knowing) that at the time of Lucifers creation he would eventually become Satan, and spend his existence reeking havoc on man kind. Leading people into criminal activities. Suppose I were to build an evil robot, that I knew would go around torturing and murdering people. Whose fault would it be if I let it loose? Mine or the robots? Of course it would be mine, for I created it with that purpose and unleashed it for that purpose. Now I ask you, whose fault is deviltry in the world? Is it the PUPPET Satan or the being that deliberately created Satans evil?

God built Satan as an angel and gave Him great power, wisdom, and glory, but it was so much for him that he rebelled. You'd have to see my answer just above again otherwise though I suppose.

 

Now God Plays Switch-A-Roo And Humans Are The Creators Of Evil Not only does the bible imply, but so do many Christians, that we as a people are the creator of evil. It is clear for reading the bible that this is untrue, but the speculation still remains. Supposedly, when Adam and Eve fell from grace, they single handedly brought evil into the world. All you have to do is think logically for a moment, and you will obviously see something is very unjust with this concept. Could any rational being hold a starving infant in Ethiopia responsible for the actions of two long dead people? Or perhaps, would you find it fair to be convicted of Jack the Rippers crimes? The connection in both of these instances are not only ludicrous but, disgusting to nod your head at. People who use this argument are simply attempting to rationalize sadism.

Often with this there is talked of an age of accountability for each person which is what is believed to be the age an individual person realizes what they are doing as wrong and thus becomes responsible for their actions. Whatever isn't of faith is of sin because you are doing that which you inwardly know to be wrong. However, a baby doesn't have that knowledge of right and wrong yet, so...

 

Romans 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

 

I must declare that a Christian that walks into a childrens ward and insists that it is correct that children suffer as a result of the original sin, must destroy themselves of all compassion and mercy. I insist that those who worship the lord knowing this hypocrisy must be as cruel as the Christian god he/she believes in. A complete and utter moral degenerate, taking stabs at protecting their belief system. A person as such would just as easily worship Satan as god in their blindness and faith. For apparently, no amount of evidence could convince him that god was bad once they decided to worship him; their basic assumption is that they are correct, which makes them untouchable by any amount of rationality.

The Bible does tell us to go out and care for orphans and widows and to be compassionately caring for others.

 

 

Human Judgment

One of the criticisms most frequently leveled at me when presenting any of the above arguments has been that I have no right to judge god. A pretty feeble grasp at the straws. Christians proclaim that god is the definition of good. All morality proceeds downwards from him, so it makes no sense to apply moral standards to him. But I must interject. . . God allowed my ancestors Adam and Eve to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Thus, allowing us to be like gods, and know the difference between good and evil. This very biblical verse, written in the first book of Genesis, conflicts with the same argument these Christians attempt to use. If we as humans are now capable of knowing good and evil LIKE THE GODS why can not use are judgment? How can it be lower then gods if god is the one who claimed that we are like him?

Lets say for the sake of argument that I should not judge god. Well then, would it be fair to hold him up to his own standards? Please consult verses Matthew 25:41-46 We hear Jesus say: Go away from me with your curse upon you, to the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you never gave me food; I was thirsty and you never gave me anything to drink; I was a stranger and you never made me welcome, naked and you never clothed me, sick and in prison and you never visited me. . . And they will go away to eternal punishment, and the virtuous to eternal life.

Now, I have never personally seen Jesus feed the hungry nor, have I seen him give drink to those who thirst. But, I do personally see thousands of people die of starvation. I do not recall Jesus dispensing clothes. He has never made me feel welcome, let alone acknowledged. I see the faithful sicken and die on a daily basis. In light of this Jesus himself is the worst of all sinners; if there is no double standard he will be at the head of the line into eternal punishment. He is guilty of every crime of which he accuses the damned.

Well, the first thing you're building this whole thing around is faulty, it doesn't say the difference between good and evil, but merely to know good and evil. You can know it but not know it well or adequately, just enough to make you lose faith and thus have sin.

 

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

In Conclusion

I dont think I could ever complete a whole list as to what I find objectionable regarding the bible. There are many more topics in which to tackle such as sexism, infanticide, homophobia, and the likes. Frankly, I find it too tiresome to go on any further. As I read over all that I have wrote I simply wish to close this essay with a very brief summation: I do not believe in the reality of god, except as a psychological phenomenon, but if l did believe I would not worship that horror. It violates my morality to worship a hypocritical, judgmental, self righteous murderer. In punishment, it could send me to the hell its made for those it dislikes, and if there was no other choice but worshiping it, I would walk in proudly.

82394[/snapback]

Well, I think I answered a lot of your stuff... Hopefully you're still on the site and we can discuss this further... but for now, I'm getting some much-needed sleep... Almost 11 am now (yes, am, not pm) and I need it. Night

 

Notice from buffaloHELP:

Fixed double post issue as per request. Fixing BB code issue. Still not showing correctly--coming back later to fix codes.

Edited August 29, 2005 by cmatcmextra (see edit history)

[Puck_4004 0]

No

Notice from BuffaloHELP:

Warning! One liner response is considered a spam. This is your only verbal warning.

Edited July 9, 2005 by BuffaloHELP (see edit history)

[Bikerman 2]

I assume you are referring to evolution? There is both macroevolution and microevolution. Macro is the unproven belief that everything came from nothing which violates the Law of Biogenesis since all life must come from life. Micro has been proven as with Darwin's finches that small changes occur within species, they adapt. Macro was cleverly snuck in and proclaimed fact when micro was and people commonly confuse the 2. Evolutionists have been struggling to find transitional forms, missing links, and new dating methods to support their pet theory that everything came from dirt rather then God, in vain.

Sorry to intrude - I will not stay long - but you have some pretty bad misconceptions here which need addressing.

What you think is macroevolution is not actually macroevolution at all. Macroevolution is the term used for biological and genetic analysis at the scale beyond species level. I suspect you mean it in the creationist sense - the evolution of species rather than changes within a species. If you are going to tell someone they are confused about the term it is best to make sure you understand it yourself. Speciation can be macro and it can be micro, which is obvious when you consider that all evolution consists of incremental change rather than revolution. At what point does a common ancestoral species become a new species? The answer normally given is when it is non-fertile with the original population, but that is a bit of a fudge - there is good genetic reason to think that human-chimp breeding could be viable, for example.

(The 'Law of Biogenesis' is baloney, by the way - there is no such law - it is just a name given to wishful thinking and dressed-up in scientific clothes).

 

I'll use Macroevolution in the (wrong) manner in which you clearly intend it. It wasn't 'snuck in and proclaimed fact' at all. Neither have we been searching for transition fossils, missing links or new dating methods. This is creationist nonsense I'm afraid. The term 'transition fossil' is pretty meaningless actually. Evolution does not work in sudden jumps generally, so any fossil can be said to be a transition fossil. If you mean fossils which demonstrate intermediate forms between 'established species' then there are a huge number of them.

 

A visit to any decent museum will give you:

Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays; Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish; Transition from fishes to first amphibians; Transitions among amphibians; Transition from amphibians to first reptiles; Transitions among reptiles; Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long); Transition from reptiles to first birds

 

If you want mammalian intermediates then we can do even better. The whole Cenozoic era is very well documented in the fossil record, so take your pick and I will give you an intermediate fossil (or the name of one).

 

Dating methods have changed as physics has developed, not in some scrabble for evidence since the evidence for evolution was overwhelming 3 generations ago. Most modern scientists don't bother much with the old creationist obsessions of missing links and transition fossils - the evidence has been around for 70 years, so if creationists haven't bothered to go and look yet there is little point giving them even more. Most of the modern work on evolution is done below the phenotype, at the genetic level. In fact you can take the whole fossil record away and the case for evolution is still proven beyond doubt by the generic/phylogenetic and molecular evidence.

I'm afraid that, much though you might like to believe otherwise, evolution is not in question.

 

If you want a list of transition fossils for any of the major intermediate forms then I can happily give you one. Likewise I can give you the cyto and phylogenetic evidence that absolutely clinches any last vesitige of possible doubt that even the most sceptical person could harbour.

 

If you are going to pontificate on evolution you owe it to yourself, and certainly to your correspondant, to inform yourself, and to be honest. Unfortunately, and I say this with real regret, honesty is very much lacking in most of the creationists I have met (a very large number) over the years and they keep recycling the same old lies.

 

I will now leave you to your conversation.

 

best wishes

Chris.