Discussion: Does Yahweh really love us?

[macbone]

Everything requires belief, it is not everything though that has any bearing on our lives, it is the belief. If you remove the thing that the belief is attached to, but retain the belief, nothing would change. God couldn't not know this. And so it is, God must know that belief in him is counter to our design. It is through logic that we do not put our hands into the fire. It is by logic that one must either come to the conclusion that there is no god, or that he does not want us to know that he exists.

I submit then, that the way to god, is to not belief in him and to do good. If he exists, and sits in judgement, then he will conclude that with our lives we decided to do good not for some reward like you selfish Christians seek, but simply because that is what we decided to do with our lives.

This option would be sufficient if it were possible to live a life where one only does good. But then, how is good defined, and who is defining it? I suppose it's possible to live a life of complete devotion to good (Gandhi and Mother Teresa probably came pretty close), but one thing I've noticed about people who I'd call truly good is that they claim that they're not good at all. Almost all saints call themselves sinners.

If God exists, and he knows that it's impossible to live a completely good life, he wouldn't expect us to do so. Heaven would be God and his angels, and maybe two or three people who were somehow able to avoid interacting with the rest of humanity.

But you're right, Aradhus. We should treat other people with fairness not because of some reward at the end of life, but because it is morally and ethically correct. If instead we prey on others for our own selfish interests, we risk corrupting or destroying society.

[shieldgenerator7]

natty, I have nothing against you personally. I don't like all your argument tactics (I despise intentional misquotations) but I don't hold anything against you personally. To me, you're a brother in Christ, even if I only know you online. truthfully, I hate agnosticism and aetheism and hinduism and buddhism and all those religions that are not my own. But the people who practice those religions are still my brothers and sisters in Christ, whether they believe it or not. So even though you claim to be an agnostic / aetheist, you're still my brother in Christ.

[2dimes]

I honestly don't understand the response to my statement.

Sorry, but my grade stands. You can retake the test next week if you wish.

Well of course, I can't argue with flies I guess.

[Nola_Lifer]

truthfully, I hate agnosticism and aetheism and hinduism and buddhism and all those religions that are not my own.

How can you hate just because these things aren't what you are. Seems ignorant and prejudice and not very Christian of you.

[shieldgenerator7]

truthfully, I hate agnosticism and aetheism and hinduism and buddhism and all those religions that are not my own.

How can you hate just because these things aren't what you are. Seems ignorant and prejudice and not very Christian of you.

okay, maybe "hate" is a strong word. but you completely ignored the rest of what I said. It's the idea behind it that I don't like, and not the people. For example, I 'hate' smoking but I don't 'hate' those people who choose to smoke. Does that make sense?

[Nola_Lifer]

truthfully, I hate agnosticism and aetheism and hinduism and buddhism and all those religions that are not my own.

How can you hate just because these things aren't what you are. Seems ignorant and prejudice and not very Christian of you.

okay, maybe "hate" is a strong word. but you completely ignored the rest of what I said. It's the idea behind it that I don't like, and not the people. For example, I 'hate' smoking but I don't 'hate' those people who choose to smoke. Does that make sense?

But Hinduism and Buddhism have common themes that you can find in Christianity. This is why I called you ignorant. I was raised Catholic in a very Catholic city. I read books from people of different creeds. I even shared some with my Grandmother who is very Catholic. She understands that there is value in what other people from other religions have to say and not just what was told in her Christian values.

[2dimes]

I submit then, that the way to god, is to not belief in him and to do good. If he exists, and sits in judgement, then he will conclude that with our lives we decided to do good not for some reward like you selfish Christians seek, but simply because that is what we decided to do with our lives.

I completely agree with most of this as it is how I understand Yahushua's teachings, we are to do the right thing just because it is right.

Even if one is your enemy, he taught you are to love them.

Matthew 5-44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

As well as some others like Matthew 22-40 etc. I believe those to be true I also have tested them.

I know I'm selfish it's my nature, sometimes I make an effort to over come it. So you may use the term "selfish" to discribe me as it is true.

However please don't resort to name calling, labelling me a "Christian" just isn't fair. You don't know me and that's hurtfull. If we were better freinds and I knew you were just kidding around that might be different.

How true anyting is isn't relevant, sometimes you can't prove basic facts to someone that won't believe you. You must have experienced this before.

ITT

Everything requires belief, it is not everything though that has any bearing on our lives, it is the belief. If you remove the thing that the belief is attached to, but retain the belief, nothing would change. God couldn't not know this. And so it is, God must know that belief in him is counter to our design. It is through logic that we do not put our hands into the fire.

I wasn't throwing that out as evidence of anything. In fact I was not intending to open my case or reveal my product there. I was hoping it would agree with what you stated.

I wanted to start some discussion even though I knew it was not possible. I'm covered in labels and prejudice (I'm not totally against that or think it wrong. I just want to make it known that I see it even if others do not. If a person needs call me a "christian" I'll survive.) but they can't just read what I wrote because it means I must be trying to convert them to a religion or have some designs against their being correct. After all when people learn their true science or religion it must be defended from any and all that wish to take it away to allow open thoughts to sneak in.

I'm just writing out that we can tell a person not to put their hand in a fire because it will burn them and that it is true regardless of our acceptance of that fact. You do agree it is true fire will burn a person even before someone tests it or if they won't believe it, correct? natty has been acting like he needs to touch the fire because he can't believe another. Like he has mesured the age of the earth and lionz is deficient of brains because he won't believe natty.

For some nothing will be true for them until they try it. I'm not saying that it's wrong to know something by your own experience, in fact I also prefer to find things out for myself. I am saying there's times when we choose to trust someone else's experience and know it's true without the burn scars. We need to because no one will live long enough as a human to experience everything or make every mistake. Even if the latter day saints teach that.

I do not think natty figured out the age of the earth through his own work. Lighting fires to boil water and measuring the temperature and altitude. I propose he is trusting someone else's data. I think lionz is relying on someone else's data also even if he was not posting links to it. I supose I'm "agnostic" regarding the age of the earth, it could be either and I don't think it matters. If it's young and we evolved from protien and natty is correct still fine. If it's billions of years old and God made us same thing. Yes I do believe it could be 6000 years old. I doubt this but refuse to discount it completely as I can't know at this time.

I still feel wether something is true or false is not dependant on being able to prove it to another person or even yourself. I might have a very sensible argument to make it appear I proved something that is not true. Other times there will be a simple thing that is true and you just can't convince a skeptic of that fact.

It is by logic that one must either come to the conclusion that there is no god, or that he does not want us to know that he exists.

I believe at this time he does not allow us to know that he exists. I don't know if it's something he wants, if he does it for us, for him, both or niether.

[2dimes]

natty, I have nothing against you personally. I don't like all your argument tactics (I despise intentional misquotations) but I don't hold anything against you personally. To me, you're a brother in Christ, even if I only know you online. truthfully, I hate agnosticism and aetheism and hinduism and buddhism and all those religions that are not my own. But the people who practice those religions are still my brothers and sisters in Christ, whether they believe it or not. So even though you claim to be an agnostic / aetheist, you're still my brother in Christ.

Hating things is pretty normal really. Seems like doing the "christian" thing might hold you back a little. Logically it would mean following a guy that taught really hard core unconditional love.

[natty dread]

I do not think natty figured out the age of the earth through his own work. Lighting fires to boil water and measuring the temperature and altitude. I propose he is trusting someone else's data. I think lionz is relying on someone else's data also even if he was not posting links to it. I supose I'm "agnostic" regarding the age of the earth, it could be either and I don't think it matters. If it's young and we evolved from protien and natty is correct still fine. If it's billions of years old and God made us same thing. Yes I do believe it could be 6000 years old. I doubt this but refuse to discount it completely as I can't know at this time.

No, no, no, no.

...No.

That's just like saying "well, you don't have any first-hand evidence that fire is hot, you're just going by other people's data", then saying "I know a guy who has evidence that says fire is cold" and then claim that the two positions are equal.

They are not.

Any "evidence" or "data" claiming that young earth is possible is shoddy science done by LIARS who twist facts to push their own agenda. They start with a presupposition that the earth must be young, then find all kinds things that support their presupposition when taken out of context, and try to poke holes into anything that disproves their claim. Sorry but you cannot call this kind of "data" equal with data that has been acquired by honest scientific methods.

There's just so much overwhelming evidence that tells us that the earth is over 4 billion years old. Anyone who claims they have evidence of a young earth are either misguided or downright liars.

And the worst kind of people are those who teach those lies to their children. At this day and age, proper education is very important, and teaching these falsehoods to children is simply robbing them of their future.

I still feel wether something is true or false is not dependant on being able to prove it to another person or even yourself.

No, of course it is not. Facts are facts whether you believe them or not. Like the earth is over 4 billion years old whether you believe it or not.

natty, I have nothing against you personally. I don't like all your argument tactics (I despise intentional misquotations) but I don't hold anything against you personally. To me, you're a brother in Christ, even if I only know you online.

I don't like your argument tactics either. Refusing to answer questions and preaching. Kinda reminds me of a child who plugs his ears and shouts "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU I CAN'T HEAR YOU"...

And no, I'm not your brother, in krist or otherwise. You're welcome to believe it if you insist but it doesn't make it true.

truthfully, I hate agnosticism and aetheism and hinduism and buddhism and all those religions that are not my own.

I see. Interesting.

[safariguy5]

truthfully, I hate agnosticism and aetheism and hinduism and buddhism and all those religions that are not my own.

How can you hate just because these things aren't what you are. Seems ignorant and prejudice and not very Christian of you.

Isn't that the reason for the Crusades, 9/11, Northern Ireland, the Inquisition, and a bunch of other wars? Intolerance of other religions?

[Nola_Lifer]

truthfully, I hate agnosticism and aetheism and hinduism and buddhism and all those religions that are not my own.

How can you hate just because these things aren't what you are. Seems ignorant and prejudice and not very Christian of you.

Isn't that the reason for the Crusades, 9/11, Northern Ireland, the Inquisition, and a bunch of other wars? Intolerance of other religions?

Yes and no. Religion is just a good way of making someone different than you; therefore, the justification of the wars or violate actions becomes right.

[shieldgenerator7]

truthfully, I hate agnosticism and aetheism and hinduism and buddhism and all those religions that are not my own.

How can you hate just because these things aren't what you are. Seems ignorant and prejudice and not very Christian of you.

Isn't that the reason for the Crusades, 9/11, Northern Ireland, the Inquisition, and a bunch of other wars? Intolerance of other religions?

Yes and no. Religion is just a good way of making someone different than you; therefore, the justification of the wars or violate actions becomes right.

Well, the reason for the crusades and such had many factors, but religious wise, it's not just hating the other's religion, but also hating them because of their religion. There's a difference. One is making the person equivalent with the practice, and one detaches the practice from the person.

[safariguy5]

truthfully, I hate agnosticism and aetheism and hinduism and buddhism and all those religions that are not my own.

How can you hate just because these things aren't what you are. Seems ignorant and prejudice and not very Christian of you.

Isn't that the reason for the Crusades, 9/11, Northern Ireland, the Inquisition, and a bunch of other wars? Intolerance of other religions?

Yes and no. Religion is just a good way of making someone different than you; therefore, the justification of the wars or violate actions becomes right.

Well, the reason for the crusades and such had many factors, but religious wise, it's not just hating the other's religion, but also hating them because of their religion. There's a difference. One is making the person equivalent with the practice, and one detaches the practice from the person.

Conversion by the sword eh? If you don't agree with me and won't be converted, I have to kill you. Still violates the ten commandments though doesn't it?

[notyou2]

Nope. The pope overrode that rule and gave them all special dispensation to be blood thirsty killers and rapists just this once.


Obviously the pope is more powerful than god and moses if he can just arbitrarily decide to over rule the alleged laws of god.

[SirSebstar]

I believe the thora already gave the allowence for killing poeple, but not murder, as per wiki
The Old Testament's examples of killings sanctioned by God are often cited in defense of the view that "murder" is a more accurate translation. Additionally, Hebrew has other words for "kill," including הרג (harag) and המית (heimit), while רצח (ratzach), which is found in the Ten Commandments לא תרצח (lo tirtzach), was more specific. Joel M. Hoffman concludes that "kill" is too broad but "murder" is too narrow to reflect tirtsah.[60]

[2dimes]

Obviously the pope is more powerful than god and moses if he can just arbitrarily decide to over rule the alleged laws of god.

Swap "powerful" with influential and I'll agree.

[2dimes]

I still feel wether something is true or false is not dependant on being able to prove it to another person or even yourself.

No, of course it is not. Facts are facts whether you believe them or not. Like the earth is over 4 billion years old whether you believe it or not.

Huh so we can have a discussion about this now without having you having to state my positions for me?

I do not think natty figured out the age of the earth through his own work. Lighting fires to boil water and measuring the temperature and altitude. I propose he is trusting someone else's data. I think lionz is relying on someone else's data also even if he was not posting links to it. I supose I'm "agnostic" regarding the age of the earth, it could be either and I don't think it matters. If it's young and we evolved from protien and natty is correct still fine. If it's billions of years old and God made us same thing. Yes I do believe it could be 6000 years old. I doubt this but refuse to discount it completely as I can't know at this time.

No, no, no, no.

...No.

That's just like saying "well, you don't have any first-hand evidence that fire is hot, you're just going by other people's data", then saying "I know a guy who has evidence that says fire is cold" and then claim that the two positions are equal.

Oh, well at least you're not totally changing my side. Ok, I don't mind what you've done there. If that's the only way you can grasp my position it's close enough.

They are not.

I agree. I'm not sure how that would prove one over the other but I'm happy. This is more like you tell me, "Don't put your hand in the fire it will burn you." Then I say, "No it won't." then put on a welding glove and take a stick out of the fire without burning my hand.

You're still right even though I cheated and didn't wait for the burn that would happen if I kept my gloved hand in the fire long enough.

Any "evidence" or "data" claiming that young earth is possible is shoddy science done by LIARS who twist facts to push their own agenda. They start with a presupposition that the earth must be young, then find all kinds things that support their presupposition when taken out of context, and try to poke holes into anything that disproves their claim. Sorry but you cannot call this kind of "data" equal with data that has been acquired by honest scientific methods.

I just can't accept "Any" at the start there. though I have noted there's more than a few so I understand your position.

There's just so much overwhelming evidence that tells us that the earth is over 4 billion years old. Anyone who claims they have evidence of a young earth are either misguided or downright liars.

My stepfather inlaw was a Havard educated research scientist that taught at Columbia for a while, like a decade or so. I've had a chance to hang out with some pretty solid scientists. I've been exposed to them telling each other they're right and the other guy is all wet. It's not much different from this discussion. Maybe you're just easier to overwhelm. The honest ones were still looking for much more conclusive evidence to support their theories on the actual age of the earth.

Fair enough none of them were going for 6000 years but most of them couldn't change a fan belt on their car correctly either.

And the worst kind of people are those who teach those lies to their children. At this day and age, proper education is very important, and teaching these falsehoods to children is simply robbing them of their future.

You seem passionate about kids in here. So have you missed how people teach their children they are the center of the universe and everything should come to them on a platter by buying everything for them they can afford? Or is that cool?

What are you teaching your kids? I'm going to teach mine, "A car can crush you even if you have the right away, so don't walk in front of one if it didn't stop for you."

Later I hope to teach them things like, how to safely change a fan belt, build a shelter, start a fire, grow vegitables, fish and butcher animals if I can.

[natty dread]

Huh so we can have a discussion about this now without having you having to state my positions for me?

Oh, well at least you're not totally changing my side. Ok, I don't mind what you've done there. If that's the only way you can grasp my position it's close enough.

Ok, if you make your position so vague that you can always claim people are misrepresenting you... seems really convenient for you, that's all...

I just can't accept "Any" at the start there. though I have noted there's more than a few so I understand your position.

Whether you accept it or not... The argument for a 6000 year old earth is so wrong, there's not even enough words in existence to describe the wrongness. It's not a matter of debate, there's no controversy there, it's simply untrue.

My stepfather inlaw was a Havard educated research scientist that taught at Columbia for a while, like a decade or so. I've had a chance to hang out with some pretty solid scientists. I've been exposed to them telling each other they're right and the other guy is all wet. It's not much different from this discussion. Maybe you're just easier to overwhelm. The honest ones were still looking for much more conclusive evidence to support their theories on the actual age of the earth.

Apples and oranges. Sure there might be some debate about the exact details, like if a certain piece of evidence proves the earth to be 4,4 billion or 4,5 billion years old. But just because we can't tell the exact age with a 1 year accuracy, it doesn't mean you can just claim that a 6000 (or 10000, or one million, or any such figure) year old earth is equally possible.

Fair enough none of them were going for 6000 years but most of them couldn't change a fan belt on their car correctly either.

I don't see what possible relevance fan belts could have on the issue.

You seem passionate about kids in here. So have you missed how people teach their children they are the center of the universe and everything should come to them on a platter by buying everything for them they can afford? Or is that cool?

No, it's not cool. I don't see the relevance to our argument, but no, I don't think it is cool.

It's also not cool when people teach their children that a magical man will take all people to heaven any time now so it doesn't matter what we do with this earth... It's also not cool when people teach their children to hate people who are different just because an ancient book says so. It's also not cool when people teach their children that sexuality is something that should be ashamed of and repressed, because of 2000 year old moral codes.

What are you teaching your kids? I'm going to teach mine, "A car can crush you even if you have the right away, so don't walk in front of one if it didn't stop for you."

I'm not going to have kids. This planet can only support so many people... if I wanted kids I would adopt an orphan from africa or asia, but that's not here nor there. What I would teach my hypothetical kid would be to think critically, not accept things just because a lot of people believe so, be tolerant of others even if they are different from you, and never to be ashamed of being who you are.

[shieldgenerator7]

well, you know natty, what you said you'd teach your children goes along the lines of the saying, "All truth is relative." You said you'd teach them to think critically and not just accept what is given to them. What if they go the extra step and not take your advice literally?

And, yes, you are still my brother in Christ

[natty dread]

well, you know natty, what you said you'd teach your children goes along the lines of the saying, "All truth is relative."

No, not really.

You said you'd teach them to think critically and not just accept what is given to them. What if they go the extra step and not take your advice literally?

Let me get this straight... are you actually asking: what if they think critically about the advice to think critically?

And, yes, you are still my brother in Christ

You can keep saying it as much as you want, but it still won't make it true.

[shieldgenerator7]

well, you know natty, what you said you'd teach your children goes along the lines of the saying, "All truth is relative."

No, not really.

Uh, yeah, it does. Think about it...

You said you'd teach them to think critically and not just accept what is given to them. What if they go the extra step and not take your advice literally?

Let me get this straight... are you actually asking: what if they think critically about the advice to think critically?

Yes, that is what i am asking.

And, yes, you are still my brother in Christ

You can keep saying it as much as you want, but it still won't make it true.

Stop being so stubborn, natty. You know it's true even if you don't want to admit it. I consider everyone a brother or sister in Christ. It doesn't mean I expect anything from you, it's that we're all children of God and we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

[natty dread]

Uh, yeah, it does. Think about it...

You can sit there all day claiming that "cat" means "dog" but in the end, everyone will still call a cat "cat".

Let me get this straight... are you actually asking: what if they think critically about the advice to think critically?

Yes, that is what i am asking.

Fascinating.
You seriously have no idea how ridiculous the whole premise of your question is?

At this point, I could be nasty and say "I'm not going to answer you because you're just going to use my answer to trap me in some Christian word trap!" However... I'm not going to take the cowardly, intellectually dishonest way, and instead I'll give you a direct answer:

Critical thinking means simply, thinking critically. If I was to teach my children to think critically... then yes, they should think critically about everything, even what I say.

The whole premise of "thinking critically about thinking critically" is an oxymoron, of sorts. It's intellectually lazy, at any rate. You seem to think you've found some clever metaphysical insight, that somehow critical thought cancels itself out when applied to itself... well, it doesn't. Critical thought doesn't mean that you have to dismiss everything you think about. Thinking critically means that you think rationally, without prejudice or presuppositions. So in fact, applying critical thought to itself would only make it stronger.

Stop being so stubborn, natty.

Hmm, someone is calling me stubborn. It couldn't be the same guy who for at least 2 pages adamantly refused to answer two simple questions... and still does?

You know it's true even if you don't want to admit it.

You keep on thinking that if it makes you feel better. Hah! Should be a familiar modus operandi to you, amirite?

I consider everyone a brother or sister in Christ. It doesn't mean I expect anything from you, it's that we're all children of God and we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

I consider everyone a brother or sister or both in Antichrist. I doesn't mean I expect anything from you, it's that we're all kids of Satan and we are all brothers or sisters in Antichrist.

See? Anyone can say or believe anything. It still doesn't make it true.

Also, If we're all children of God, what makes Jesus so special?

[shieldgenerator7]

natty, I was comparing what you said to the phrase "All truth is relative", I wasn't setting them equal to one another. If you think about it (which apparently you refuse to) the saying is self-contradictory. If all truth is relative, then the 'truth' of "all truth is relative" is also relative, meaning that no truth is relative. Of course, this seems logically twisted. It's one of those self-contradictory sentences.
We're all children of God because God made us in His own image. Jesus (The Son) is part of the Trinity, to answer your question.
Also, you are still my brother in Christ even if you refuse to admit it.

[natty dread]

natty, I was comparing what you said to the phrase "All truth is relative", I wasn't setting them equal to one another.

What you actually said was this:

well, you know natty, what you said you'd teach your children goes along the lines of the saying, "All truth is relative."

And it is still false.

If you think about it (which apparently you refuse to) the saying is self-contradictory. If all truth is relative, then the 'truth' of "all truth is relative" is also relative, meaning that no truth is relative.

What this has to do with anything, I have no idea, since I have never said anything that would "go along the lines" of truth being relative.

We're all children of God because God made us in His own image. Jesus (The Son) is part of the Trinity, to answer your question.

That answers nothing. What exactly does it mean to be a "part of the Trinity"? I thought there was only one god. I also thought Jesus was special because he was the "Son of God". Now you say we all are. What's the difference?

And also, God has an appendix?

Also, you are still my brother in Christ even if you refuse to admit it.

What a coincidence! You are my brother in Allah, even if you refuse to admit it.

[shieldgenerator7]

Well, Allah is the what the Muslims call God. Muslims, Jews, and Christians are just believers in the same religion but are just huge denominations. I like to say you're my brother in Christ, but yes, you're my brother in Allah as well.