God is Imaginary
Replies
-
This debate has ranged over many issues with input from many contributors. Some contributors have been dismissive of the views of others and some have displayed remarkable intolerance. There is one issue however which has to be faced by every person who has contributed to the debate. All of us will one day die and will be unable to escape from the consequences of the position which each has espoused. It surely behoves each person to reflect soberly on the certainty of their position. As a committed christian my confidence is based on the person of Jesus Christ and the atonement which he made for my sins at Calvary. I accept that many people do not share my faith and they are free to do so. If those who reject the message of the gospel are correct, and I don't for one moment believe that they are ,then the consequences for me are simply oblivion. If however they are wrong, as scripture solemnly tells them they are, then the consequences for them are too horrible to contemplate. All the side issues raised in this debate pale into insignificance when faced with this simple question, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOU IF YOU ARE WRONG? There are no second chances.
What you just described is called Pascal's wager, and there are many problems with it. The biggest, to me, being that if you decide to believe just because you want to avoid hell, then you don't really believe at all. You can go through the motions, say you believe, and even lead a moral life, but you'd be lying to the world.
Additionally, if I'm going to wager that any particular religion is real, I need to wager that they all may be real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager0 -
I see a huge difference between imposing rules based on religion run a daycare, private school, or even a restaurant (I'm looking at you, Chik-fil-A!!) than if you're running a hospital or a pharmacy. Public health trumps religious freedom, always.
Let's look at it this way. You've been in a terrible car accident. You're rushed to the hospital and it's determined that you're bleeding out and need a blood transfusion. But wait! This hospital is run by Jehova's witnesses, blood transfusions are against their religion. Sorry, you have to die.
You've completely misunderstood what we were discussing. My point was that some want to force Catholic institutions into providing coverage for birth control pills or abortions to their employees.0 -
Aren't selections from the NAB used in the only Mass lectionary approved by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops?
There is a huge difference between the translation used in the lectionary and the introductory notes to biblical books that are found in certain editions of that translation. The notes are not “scripture” and they do not have any more merit than the scholarship of the persons who wrote them. If I have reason to question their conclusions, that is legitimate and proper within a Catholic context. It happens all the time. This has nothing to do with being a “cafeteria Catholic.” If I decided to reject or question a fundamental, dogmatic teaching of the Church, that is another matter. This is nowhere near such a case.0 -
Aren't selections from the NAB used in the only Mass lectionary approved by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops?
There is a huge difference between the translation used in the lectionary and the introductory notes to biblical books that are found in certain editions of that translation. The notes are not “scripture” and they do not have any more merit than the scholarship of the persons who wrote them. If I have reason to question their conclusions, that is legitimate and proper within a Catholic context. It happens all the time. This has nothing to do with being a “cafeteria Catholic.” If I decided to reject or question a fundamental, dogmatic teaching of the Church, that is another matter. This is nowhere near such a case.
You may want to look into the history of the NAB. It is a pretty established list of contributors and was translated into English by the CCD.0 -
@Brunner26_2. I do not intend to become involved in pointless debate. I simply state what God has said in His Holy Word. Scripture clearly reveals the exclusive nature of God and the means He has provided for sinful man to be forgiven for his sin and be reconciled to God. I don't for one minute expect the majority of contributors to this debate to accept my position but I would ask that they at leasy respect it as being honestly and greatfully held.0
-
You may want to look into the history of the NAB. It is a pretty established list of contributors and was translated into English by the CCD.
You may want to look into the history of the structure of the Catholic Church and what constitutes a “binding” article of faith on Catholics.0 -
@Brunner26_2. I do not intend to become involved in pointless debate. I simply state what God has said in His Holy Word. Scripture clearly reveals the exclusive nature of God and the means He has provided for sinful man to be forgiven for his sin and be reconciled to God. I don't for one minute expect the majority of contributors to this debate to accept my position but I would ask that they at leasy respect it as being honestly and greatfully held.
Of course we respect your honest position!
Though, it does seem a little odd that you're commenting in a debate group if you don't want to get into a debate.0 -
Pascal's Wager. Funny how atheists know it so well and the faithful never seem to.
To quote Hitch, "You sound like the kind of person who has never read any arguments opposing your own position."
And as said before, this is debate group. Don't come in, drop "well you're all going to hell", and expect to waltz out without an argument.
You can believe it honestly and sincerely as you like. Doesn't mean it's not honestly and sincerely one of the worst things you can say to a person.
So for you I'm gonna throw off the kid gloves for a minute.
If this God you believe in is as you say he is, that he sends men, women, babies and children to burn in eternal torment for not worshiping him, he's a sonofa***** and I wouldn't follow him anyway. You worship him. I have better morals than that.0 -
. I have better morals than that.
Be careful, MudRunLvr. This is twice now you've proclaimed to be morally superior to Christians. I can't stand Christians who believe they're morally superior for believing in God, and I don't think it's right for atheists to make similar claims.0 -
If this God you believe in is as you say he is, that he sends men, women, babies and children to burn in eternal torment for not worshiping him, he's a sonofa***** and I wouldn't follow him anyway. You worship him. I have better morals than that.
The God I believe in gives you your existence every moment and patiently invites you to share eternal happiness with him forever. In fact, the God I believe in is so patient and loving that he would allow ungrateful, complaining creatures to curse him and continue to give them opportunities to find true and lasting happiness. For those who are damned, it’s their own damned fault. No?
0 -
You may want to look into the history of the NAB. It is a pretty established list of contributors and was translated into English by the CCD.
You may want to look into the history of the structure of the Catholic Church and what constitutes a “binding” article of faith on Catholics.
I never said there was anything that was binding, I simply pointed out that the NAB was the Bible of choice for the USCCB and was translated to English by the CCD. You also stated that there are no official, dogmatic dates for the creation dates of the gospels. I would think that a committee of learned bishops and scholars as well as the involvement of the Catholic Church committee in charge of education of doctrine would be able to come to an agreement on when they believe a gospel was authored.0 -
. I have better morals than that.
Be careful, MudRunLvr. This is twice now you've proclaimed to be morally superior to Christians. I can't stand Christians who believe they're morally superior for believing in God, and I don't think it's right for atheists to make similar claims.
Sorry WP, but this guy set off the angry atheist in me. With his sincere and honest belief that I'll burn for eternity for not believing as he does. It's wicked, plain and simple. Sugarcoat it in all the pleasantries he'd like, there's not much nastier you can say to a person. It's a grown up version of "I'm right, You're wrong, You're in trou-ble!!"
If someone is going to throw that out there they get no respect from me. None. And they better be ready to back it up and not just say it and run away.
It's disgraceful of people to say and it would be a horrible thing, luckily there's no truth whatsoever to it.
And if I may enlighten him about on the fallacies of his logic, he said there's no loss if he dies and it turns out he's wrong. Let's examine that.
A. This isn't an either or proposition. There are in fact many gods people believe in. So maybe we're both wrong and Allah is the one true god. Guess what pally, you'll sit and burn next to me for all eternity, because you had the audacity to worship the wrong god. And mostly for the sin of being born in the wrong place. You live in a society where Christianity is dominant so that's how you were raised. So you're a Christian. You think it's ok that all the Muslims and Jews and Scientologists burn for all eternity, because YOU'RE right. Well imagine for a minute that the shoe's on the other foot. That you chose the wrong god and the real one is going to punish you for it forever. Sounds pretty cruel, doesn't it? You'd give anything to take it back but it's too late and now, for the rest of all time, you will suffer every single moment. Wow, what a kind and loving deity. How many millions of children have been subject to this "love" you believe in so strongly?
B. You claim that if there is nothing after death you won't have lost anything. Yes you have. You'll have spent your entire life believing a lie. With all your heart. Think of how much Christianity is a part of your life. In your thoughts and actions and associations... now imagine the crazy notion that what a bunch of poorly educated people said 2,000 years ago just MAY not be entirely accurate. That none of it is true. Guess what? You have completely wasted the only life you ever get. Believing a myth. Everything you've devoted yourself to would have been an utter and complete waste of time. You don't consider that to be losing something?
Sometimes I think the reason I don't believe in religion is because I care too much about people. I can't just offhandedly comfort myself with the thought of millions of souls being tortured forever so that I got to be "right".0 -
Sometimes I think the reason I don't believe in religion is because I care too much about people. I can't just offhandedly comfort myself with the thought of millions of souls being tortured forever so that I got to be "right".
Well, I can't comfort myself with the thought of people in hell, either. I think you and I differe on what we consider "hell", though. In my mind, "hell" is the eternal separation from God. Meaning, heaven is the state of eternal happiness with God, so being separated from God for eternity, once realizing there is indeed a God, is hell. Does that make sense? So, it's not like I think of hell as this place where people are literally on fire for eternity.0 -
I never said there was anything that was binding, I simply pointed out that the NAB was the Bible of choice for the USCCB and was translated to English by the CCD. You also stated that there are no official, dogmatic dates for the creation dates of the gospels. I would think that a committee of learned bishops and scholars as well as the involvement of the Catholic Church committee in charge of education of doctrine would be able to come to an agreement on when they believe a gospel was authored.
As you should have noticed in the Catholic Encyclopedia article, there is simply not enough data available to come up with a precise date. That source put the range between 50 and 67. Why is it so hard to understand that people admit when the evidence cannot narrow it any further? I presented arguments earlier for a pre-70 date for Luke (and therefore for Mark) to which you never replied. Often people are influence on this issue by changing factors or “fads”. That’s why I like to go back to the most ancient traditions and the fundamental facts themselves. I think all things considered a date around or before 65 is most compelling. I have seen nothing in our exchange that even remotely causes me to doubt this conclusion.0 -
I never said there was anything that was binding, I simply pointed out that the NAB was the Bible of choice for the USCCB and was translated to English by the CCD. You also stated that there are no official, dogmatic dates for the creation dates of the gospels. I would think that a committee of learned bishops and scholars as well as the involvement of the Catholic Church committee in charge of education of doctrine would be able to come to an agreement on when they believe a gospel was authored.
As you should have noticed in the Catholic Encyclopedia article, there is simply not enough data available to come up with a precise date. That source put the range between 50 and 67. Why is it so hard to understand that people admit when the evidence cannot narrow it any further? I presented arguments earlier for a pre-70 date for Luke (and therefore for Mark) to which you never replied. Often people are influence on this issue by changing factors or “fads”. That’s why I like to go back to the most ancient traditions and the fundamental facts themselves. I think all things considered a date around or before 65 is most compelling. I have seen nothing in our exchange that even remotely causes me to doubt this conclusion.
The pre-70 argument for Luke negates his use of Josephus' works.
You keep avoiding the point that the CCD was responsible for this translation and uses it for their US education programs. Seems as though this is pretty close to Catholic doctrine as you can get without the Pope holding a seminar.0 -
The pre-70 argument for Luke negates his use of Josephus' works.
You keep avoiding the point that the CCD was responsible for this translation and uses it for their US education programs. Seems as though this is pretty close to Catholic doctrine as you can get without the Pope holding a seminar.
Don't you understand the difference between a translation of the bible and annotations (or footnotes) in a translation? And if you think that annotations in a bible used by the Cathoilic Church gives it the nearest high authority of the Catholic Church, then you know near to nothing of the Catholic Church.0 -
The pre-70 argument for Luke negates his use of Josephus' works.
You keep avoiding the point that the CCD was responsible for this translation and uses it for their US education programs. Seems as though this is pretty close to Catholic doctrine as you can get without the Pope holding a seminar.
Don't you understand the difference between a translation of the bible and annotations (or footnotes) in a translation? And if you think that annotations in a bible used by the Cathoilic Church gives it the nearest high authority of the Catholic Church, then you know near to nothing of the Catholic Church.
So you are saying that the CCD, who owns the copyright to the NAB, would allow erroneous data to be in the introduction to one of the gospels in the bible they use to educate Catholic youth?0 -
I'm saying the Catholic Church does not require that its members accept one particular date for the writing of Mark's gospel. The opinions expressed in the annotations of the NAB can be accepted or rejected by good Catholics. Talk to any Bishop and he will confirm what I've just said. If you study a little but about the structure of the Catholic Church and its levels of teaching, you will easily understand that what I'm saying is accurate.So you are saying that the CCD, who owns the copyright to the NAB, would allow erroneous data to be in the introduction to one of the gospels in the bible they use to educate Catholic youth?
The way you're arguing on this issue is almost as bad as me trying to explain to a calculus teacher a calculus problem when I really know little about calculus. It appears that you know just enough about the Catholic Church to make almost everything you write to be highly inaccurate and misleading.0 -
I'm saying the Catholic Church does not require that its members accept one particular date for the writing of Mark's gospel. The opinions expressed in the annotations of the NAB can be accepted or rejected by good Catholics. Talk to any Bishop and he will confirm what I've just said. If you study a little but about the structure of the Catholic Church and its levels of teaching, you will easily understand that what I'm saying is accurate.So you are saying that the CCD, who owns the copyright to the NAB, would allow erroneous data to be in the introduction to one of the gospels in the bible they use to educate Catholic youth?
The way you're arguing on this issue is almost as bad as me trying to explain to a calculus teacher a calculus problem when I really know little about calculus. It appears that you know just enough about the Catholic Church to make almost everything you write to be highly inaccurate and misleading.
I am not saying that anyone is required to accept a date, what I am saying is that an entity so connected to the Catholic Church as the USCCB and the CCD have written that the gospel was composed around 70 AD. I would think that a large group of bishops and an organization dedicated to the education of Catholic youth would have done some research into this claim.
How is this inaccurate or misleading?0 -
Lol, doorki, about the calculus comment. Aren't you the one with a degree in religion?0
-
I am not saying that anyone is required to accept a date, what I am saying is that an entity so connected to the Catholic Church as the USCCB and the CCD have written that the gospel was composed around 70 AD. I would think that a large group of bishops and an organization dedicated to the education of Catholic youth would have done some research into this claim.
How is this inaccurate or misleading?
Did I ever suggest the people who composed that document didn't "research this claim"? A date "around or before" AD 70 is, nowadays, commonly proposed. What I have been trying to explain is that, as a Catholic, I am under no obligation to settle for this date. I have reasons to think an earlier date is better. Nothing about being a Catholic forbids my conclusion. I'm not sure what is so hard to get on this. Regarding Josephus and Luke, the claim that Luke used Josephus is groundless.0 -
I am not saying that anyone is required to accept a date, what I am saying is that an entity so connected to the Catholic Church as the USCCB and the CCD have written that the gospel was composed around 70 AD. I would think that a large group of bishops and an organization dedicated to the education of Catholic youth would have done some research into this claim.
How is this inaccurate or misleading?
Did I ever suggest the people who composed that document didn't "research this claim"? A date "around or before" AD 70 is, nowadays, commonly proposed. What I have been trying to explain is that, as a Catholic, I am under no obligation to settle for this date. I have reasons to think an earlier date is better. Nothing about being a Catholic forbids my conclusion. I'm not sure what is so hard to get on this. Regarding Josephus and Luke, the claim that Luke used Josephus is groundless.
I think he understands your point, he just disagrees with it. The question seems, to me, to be "Why believe a date other than what the catholic church believes?" I'm inclined to agree that any research you did still doesn't put you in a position to know better than the church what is the correct interpretation. That doesn't mean you CAN'T believe something else, it just seems arrogant, or like you're picking and choosing.0 -
Neither of you understands my point. You'd have to know Catholicism to understand what I'm saying. Like I said before, ask any Bishop and he will agree with all my points here and not think I am arrogant.I think he understands your point, he just disagrees with it. The question seems, to me, to be "Why believe a date other than what the catholic church believes?" I'm inclined to agree that any research you did still doesn't put you in a position to know better than the church what is the correct interpretation. That doesn't mean you CAN'T believe something else, it just seems arrogant, or like you're picking and choosing.0 -
Neither of you understands my point. You'd have to know Catholicism to understand what I'm saying. Like I said before, ask any Bishop and he will agree with all my points here and not think I am arrogant.I think he understands your point, he just disagrees with it. The question seems, to me, to be "Why believe a date other than what the catholic church believes?" I'm inclined to agree that any research you did still doesn't put you in a position to know better than the church what is the correct interpretation. That doesn't mean you CAN'T believe something else, it just seems arrogant, or like you're picking and choosing.
Hold on, let me just pull out my Pope-phone... :P0 -
You know he's not the only bishop; right?Hold on, let me just pull out my Pope-phone... :P
0 -
You know he's not the only bishop; right?Hold on, let me just pull out my Pope-phone... :P
Yeah, I just liked the sound of Pope-phone
0 -
Made me think of the song, "One of Us" (no one to call on the phone, except the pope maybe in Rome)Yeah, I just liked the sound of Pope-phone0 -
The god you believe in sentenced a friend of mine to burn in hell tonight. B was a great guy, a wonderful husband, and a loyal friend. But he experienced things in Iraq that haunted him every moment of every day for the past 9 years. He went to the VA for help but since he didn't do drugs, wasn't an alcoholic, and wasn't violent they did nothing for him. A large part of his issue was the fact that his stepson enlisted shortly after 9/11 with B's encouragement. When B and my husband were leaving Iraq, D (B's stepson) was just coming in. They were 150 yards apart but B's commander told him he couldn't take the time to see him. D's face was blown off because his unarmored Humvee was hit by an IED 2 months later. B never recovered from that. After 9 years of continuous torment B took his own life today. According to your god he's in hell for committing suicide. Your god didn't help him. Your god took his stepson and let B blame himself. Your god made it so B got no help at all. Your god left B's wife dealing with a Mother's Day week with not only the grief of remembering her lost son but also finding the body of her husband. Your god is a sadistic prick.If this God you believe in is as you say he is, that he sends men, women, babies and children to burn in eternal torment for not worshiping him, he's a sonofa***** and I wouldn't follow him anyway. You worship him. I have better morals than that.
The God I believe in gives you your existence every moment and patiently invites you to share eternal happiness with him forever. In fact, the God I believe in is so patient and loving that he would allow ungrateful, complaining creatures to curse him and continue to give them opportunities to find true and lasting happiness. For those who are damned, it’s their own damned fault. No?0 -
Not sure what you think I believe, but the God I know would not condemn someone to hell for having a mental disorder (such as PTSD). You obviously don't see God in the sme way I do. May your friend rest in peace.The god you believe in sentenced a friend of mine to burn in hell tonight. B was a great guy, a wonderful husband, and a loyal friend. But he experienced things in Iraq that haunted him every moment of every day for the past 9 years. He went to the VA for help but since he didn't do drugs, wasn't an alcoholic, and wasn't violent they did nothing for him. A large part of his issue was the fact that his stepson enlisted shortly after 9/11 with B's encouragement. When B and my husband were leaving Iraq, D (B's stepson) was just coming in. They were 150 yards apart but B's commander told him he couldn't take the time to see him. D's face was blown off because his unarmored Humvee was hit by an IED 2 months later. B never recovered from that. After 9 years of continuous torment B took his own life today. According to your god he's in hell for committing suicide. Your god didn't help him. Your god took his stepson and let B blame himself. Your god made it so B got no help at all. Your god left B's wife dealing with a Mother's Day week with not only the grief of remembering her lost son but also finding the body of her husband. Your god is a sadistic prick.0 -
Sorry to hear about your friend B, Bahet. May his family and friends find the peace he couldn't.0
