arcthemonkey
Sponsor
Soavi, I could swear I already responded to that specifically in like 4 different dimensions like, pages ago - directly to you in fact.
Debate Classics : Religion
- Thread starter FoxDemonSoavi
- Start date
And here is where I get to play the "Devil's Advocate" and give the flip side of the debate to try and ramp things up.
The Bible is also full of inconsistencies. Two examples:
The story of Job. Sorry about the paraphrasing: First, Lucifer has just recently been cast out from heaven after waging war, and now returns in this portion. God does not even seem to question his presence (So...um.....shouldn't you NOT be here?). Then, Lucifer questions the followers of God, to which, God points out Job, his faithful follower. Lucifer tells God that Job only loves him because God gives him everything. So God, as if he has something to prove to his nemesis, allows Lucifer to test Job's faith. Job loses his sons and wife, his crops, is stricken with terrible diseases.....everything. But Job still praises God, and so, God rewards him by returning everything which he had taken.
Nice moral, but since when does an almighty, benevolent God need to prove ANYTHING to Lucifer? Especially at the expense of one of his own children? The moral is that he is, for one, trying to show true faith to his children, and also trying to lighten the heart of Lucifer, but talk about "tough love".
Another comes throughout the Bible, but let's focus specifically on Adam and Eve. God puts Adam and Eve in the Garden, and then gives them temptation by not allowing them to taste of the apples. Of course, we know the rest, but my question is: If God truly is omnipotent (all-knowing), why did he put temptation before man, if he already knew that man would succumb to that temptation? I understand that we are allowed free-will, but God offered no protection or fore-warning to Eve when she was tempted by Lucifer in the Garden. Was mankind set up to fail?
Hopefully this will spark up the debate.
Also, please refrain from the phrase "God works in mysterious ways". The point of this debate is to argue sides and make interesting, meaningful points. If you give vague, unarguable statements, then what's the point?
The Bible is also full of inconsistencies. Two examples:
The story of Job. Sorry about the paraphrasing: First, Lucifer has just recently been cast out from heaven after waging war, and now returns in this portion. God does not even seem to question his presence (So...um.....shouldn't you NOT be here?). Then, Lucifer questions the followers of God, to which, God points out Job, his faithful follower. Lucifer tells God that Job only loves him because God gives him everything. So God, as if he has something to prove to his nemesis, allows Lucifer to test Job's faith. Job loses his sons and wife, his crops, is stricken with terrible diseases.....everything. But Job still praises God, and so, God rewards him by returning everything which he had taken.
Nice moral, but since when does an almighty, benevolent God need to prove ANYTHING to Lucifer? Especially at the expense of one of his own children? The moral is that he is, for one, trying to show true faith to his children, and also trying to lighten the heart of Lucifer, but talk about "tough love".
Another comes throughout the Bible, but let's focus specifically on Adam and Eve. God puts Adam and Eve in the Garden, and then gives them temptation by not allowing them to taste of the apples. Of course, we know the rest, but my question is: If God truly is omnipotent (all-knowing), why did he put temptation before man, if he already knew that man would succumb to that temptation? I understand that we are allowed free-will, but God offered no protection or fore-warning to Eve when she was tempted by Lucifer in the Garden. Was mankind set up to fail?
Hopefully this will spark up the debate.
Also, please refrain from the phrase "God works in mysterious ways". The point of this debate is to argue sides and make interesting, meaningful points. If you give vague, unarguable statements, then what's the point?
1. It never says lucifer is in heaven (i don't think anyway, this is off the top of my head)
2. Lucifer was accusing a devout follower of God as being of shallow faith. God wanted to show Satan (he was only lucifer before he fell) and all of us reading, that Love goes deeper than he gave me something, i'll love him. Remeber Satan probably couldn't understand why God still loved people after they rejected him, and so was trying to pick holes in the fabric of God's work. It is also, like i said, A great display of what real faith is to us, and also in the book it describes many interesting points, such as Job might have lived in the ice age, as god describes Ice like Job knew what it was, and you don't often get Ice in the middle east nowdays. This points to weather patterns after the flood.
2. Eve was warned, she was told by adam. Also God walked in the garden "in the cool of the evening" and so probably had chats with eve aswell.
Without the tree, without some way of going against God, without a rule, as such, they would have no choice but to do what God says. They would only follow him because he is all they knew. this is more like robots than real humans with choices, and it wouldn't have been real love on the humans part.
Like i said, this is mostly from memory, so if i have got some quotes wrong, sorry, but hey
there we go.
THEY WEREN'T APPLES!!!!
2. Lucifer was accusing a devout follower of God as being of shallow faith. God wanted to show Satan (he was only lucifer before he fell) and all of us reading, that Love goes deeper than he gave me something, i'll love him. Remeber Satan probably couldn't understand why God still loved people after they rejected him, and so was trying to pick holes in the fabric of God's work. It is also, like i said, A great display of what real faith is to us, and also in the book it describes many interesting points, such as Job might have lived in the ice age, as god describes Ice like Job knew what it was, and you don't often get Ice in the middle east nowdays. This points to weather patterns after the flood.
2. Eve was warned, she was told by adam. Also God walked in the garden "in the cool of the evening" and so probably had chats with eve aswell.
Without the tree, without some way of going against God, without a rule, as such, they would have no choice but to do what God says. They would only follow him because he is all they knew. this is more like robots than real humans with choices, and it wouldn't have been real love on the humans part.
Like i said, this is mostly from memory, so if i have got some quotes wrong, sorry, but hey
there we go.
THEY WEREN'T APPLES!!!!
Go deeper. Why does God have to prove ANYTHING to Satan? Even if he is "accusing" Job, why does God not simply look upon him as the evil that he is and ignore him? If God is all knowing, why does he need to "test" Job's faith? He knows full well the depth of Job's belief.
And, yes, Eve was warned about the tree and fruit, but God offered no protection, even in Paradise, to the temptations of Satan. Again, why would an omnipotent God need to "test" their faith by providing temptation? It was as if Eve was set up to fail.
And, yes, Eve was warned about the tree and fruit, but God offered no protection, even in Paradise, to the temptations of Satan. Again, why would an omnipotent God need to "test" their faith by providing temptation? It was as if Eve was set up to fail.
Roman Candle
Member
So he could write it in the Bible, and prove it to us?
Why would God give protection? He's already said "Don't eat the apple". The snake says "Eat the apple". Between the two, she chose the apple.
Why would God give protection? He's already said "Don't eat the apple". The snake says "Eat the apple". Between the two, she chose the apple.
Good point RC. If God gave them freedom to choose, and then told them not to do something, it would be self-defeating to prevent them from being able to choose between obedience and disobedience. If they weren't able to choose, then God may as well have created a rock to worship him. I think the point is that God desires sincerity, not contrived obedience.
Then why put them in the Garden to begin with? Why not put them out into the world? I know it is a lesson to obey and love God sincerely, but....
And, again, the Bible shows God punishing sinners quite frequently, but to punish one of the truly pious (Job) just to make a point? That does not truly sound like a "benevolent God".
And, again, the Bible shows God punishing sinners quite frequently, but to punish one of the truly pious (Job) just to make a point? That does not truly sound like a "benevolent God".
arcthemonkey
Sponsor
Rhazdel, what you are describing is 100% the process of removing free will. The whole point is that they COULD eat the fruit, but they weren't supposed to. If they COULDN'T, then there would be no rules, and there would be no free will.
So why didn't God put the tree of knowledge on top of some big mountain? Simple: God wanted them to make the choice. The bible says that even the rocks cry out in praise, but the praise of a rock is worthless, because a rock doesn't choose to obey - Doesn't choose to worship. If God put the tree in outer space, there would be no choice to be made.
And God didn't punish Job. That's an important distinction. God didn't do anything to Job, except reward his faith generously afterwards. Also, to somehow imply Job was sinless and deserved no punishment is silly.
But even so, is God not allowed to test our faith?
I suppose I could understand where you were coming from if God allowed Satan to break his body and kill his family and leave him alone with nothi.g but his faith in God until he bled out in a ditch somewhere, but that's not how the story ended.
The story was as much about Job as it was about Satan not understanding mankind's faith. God was demonstrating this, by allowing Satan to do the things he did. Again, Satan believed Job didn't love God at all, rather, he was afraid of him, because if he didn't pretend to love Him, God would take away his many blessings. (His family, his health, etc.) So God let him take him away, and proved him wrong.
"Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised." Job 1:20-22
Job's faith was only reenforced by this series of events. The Bible is never unclear on the fact that God tries us, in an effort to cultivate our spirits.
Again remember that Job's health was restored, he was given double of everything he lost, and among his numerous new children were, apparently, the most beautiful woman in all the land.
I see no lacking in benevolance, and I think you're misreading the story
Finally, Satan is allowed to enter heaven on occasion. (The story in Job in question, in fact, provides the clearest picture - there are special assemblies of angels, which Satan is allowed to attend) He's not allowed to live there though, and I'm sure he's not especially welcome to the others.
So why didn't God put the tree of knowledge on top of some big mountain? Simple: God wanted them to make the choice. The bible says that even the rocks cry out in praise, but the praise of a rock is worthless, because a rock doesn't choose to obey - Doesn't choose to worship. If God put the tree in outer space, there would be no choice to be made.
And God didn't punish Job. That's an important distinction. God didn't do anything to Job, except reward his faith generously afterwards. Also, to somehow imply Job was sinless and deserved no punishment is silly.
But even so, is God not allowed to test our faith?
I suppose I could understand where you were coming from if God allowed Satan to break his body and kill his family and leave him alone with nothi.g but his faith in God until he bled out in a ditch somewhere, but that's not how the story ended.
The story was as much about Job as it was about Satan not understanding mankind's faith. God was demonstrating this, by allowing Satan to do the things he did. Again, Satan believed Job didn't love God at all, rather, he was afraid of him, because if he didn't pretend to love Him, God would take away his many blessings. (His family, his health, etc.) So God let him take him away, and proved him wrong.
"Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised." Job 1:20-22
Job's faith was only reenforced by this series of events. The Bible is never unclear on the fact that God tries us, in an effort to cultivate our spirits.
Again remember that Job's health was restored, he was given double of everything he lost, and among his numerous new children were, apparently, the most beautiful woman in all the land.
I see no lacking in benevolance, and I think you're misreading the story
Finally, Satan is allowed to enter heaven on occasion. (The story in Job in question, in fact, provides the clearest picture - there are special assemblies of angels, which Satan is allowed to attend) He's not allowed to live there though, and I'm sure he's not especially welcome to the others.
Random fact (as far as my professors in college are concerned): that end of Job was written a over 100 years (150 years according to my professors) after the original Job story was written. So, at first, there was no happy ending that they knew of or bothered to write down. :x
But, going on with that, I find it disturbing that God just let that happen just because of a bet with Satan. Why bother betting? He had nothing to prove to Satan. Yeah, sure show Satan how mankind is faithful, but he shouldn't have had to do that, he's almighty and Satan is just some lowly fallen angel. He had no reason that he had to prove it. In addition, there is nothing wrong with God testing people, but just to do it to prove a point or for a bet is unnerving.
I think to come to that conclusion, one has to assume they understand the motives and purposes of God, which is a dangerous assumption to make.
That being said, it doesn't diminish the difficulty of understanding the story of Job, which has confounded scholars for centuries.
That being said, it doesn't diminish the difficulty of understanding the story of Job, which has confounded scholars for centuries.
arcthemonkey
Sponsor
CARM's take on why God allowed Satan to make Job suffer -
A guy on wikipedia put it well too:
Rye, your random fact doesn't seem to be fact at all. There is no compelling reason to believe that Job wasn't written by a single author, or that text was added to it at a later date. You are welcome to get references from your professor, but as far as I can tell he's full of it, since nobody else has ever proposed that (from what I can find) and there is absolutely no scholarly support for it.
A guy on wikipedia put it well too:
Rye, your random fact doesn't seem to be fact at all. There is no compelling reason to believe that Job wasn't written by a single author, or that text was added to it at a later date. You are welcome to get references from your professor, but as far as I can tell he's full of it, since nobody else has ever proposed that (from what I can find) and there is absolutely no scholarly support for it.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
Reguarding the whole Adam n' Eve, Job, Satan in heaven - all knowing, and rationalizing that's been brought up...
Doesn't God love Satan? Isn't it, somewhere, stated or hinted that Satan could return to God? That even his sins could be forgiven, and he too could eventually reclaim himself a seat in heaven, if only he did it out of love and regret? That no matter what one did, such as Satan, that if he truly were to find himself to be wanting forgiveness that he would always be forgiven and welcomed back and all?
But isn't that why Satan is allowed to return? And why Adam and Eve where cast out of Eden? To bless someone with the choice to make, and let them decide it themselves. To cast their own die in things and make themselves what they want to believe, but always have the chance to come home?
I'm not religious in traditional sense, and I don't think that the bible is as it was written as, but I always thought that was the importance of stories like Job, the Eden story, and every plot involving Satan. As well, too, as many other stories and tidbits of stories. That God is, in an odd way, like a mother. She'll argue with you, and let you storm out of the house - but always be the first to open the door for you when you return?
Doesn't God love Satan? Isn't it, somewhere, stated or hinted that Satan could return to God? That even his sins could be forgiven, and he too could eventually reclaim himself a seat in heaven, if only he did it out of love and regret? That no matter what one did, such as Satan, that if he truly were to find himself to be wanting forgiveness that he would always be forgiven and welcomed back and all?
But isn't that why Satan is allowed to return? And why Adam and Eve where cast out of Eden? To bless someone with the choice to make, and let them decide it themselves. To cast their own die in things and make themselves what they want to believe, but always have the chance to come home?
I'm not religious in traditional sense, and I don't think that the bible is as it was written as, but I always thought that was the importance of stories like Job, the Eden story, and every plot involving Satan. As well, too, as many other stories and tidbits of stories. That God is, in an odd way, like a mother. She'll argue with you, and let you storm out of the house - but always be the first to open the door for you when you return?
FoxDemonSoavi
Member
http://revart.blogs.com/photos/rev_arts_atheist_pinups/fd.html
a very intersting read of quotes from Frederick Douglass (He Was An Escaped Slave). here is one of my favorite quotes from it
"I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs."
a very intersting read of quotes from Frederick Douglass (He Was An Escaped Slave). here is one of my favorite quotes from it
"I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs."
FoxDemonSoavi
Member
eh, atheism is relevant to religion and I think he makes a few decent points on why there isn't a god in the way he/she/it is traditionaly thought. I find reading material can add to a debate just fine if people bother to read it.
Keep in mind part of the conversation focused on god being benevolent and not having to prove things to satan etc. I figure such an article helps point out some of the issues with god as is portrayed in the bible and portrayed by people who do not fully read it.
Keep in mind part of the conversation focused on god being benevolent and not having to prove things to satan etc. I figure such an article helps point out some of the issues with god as is portrayed in the bible and portrayed by people who do not fully read it.
I am in no way trying to take away from the horrors that guy endured, but he actually has a very good point. He prayed for twenty years, but only when he got up and did something did he escape. We can sit here and pray for poverty to end, but unless we make a move, then it isn't going to stop by itself. I think an interesting part of his story is he did actually escape. I.e. He prayed and God answered. yes, he had to make a move himself, but that is the way with God. We have to do something, step out in faith first. Obviously the Guys step out wasn't in faith, but hopefully you see the point. God almost definately did help him to escape.
He does seem a bit biased though, i.e
And if you are going to post links to 'failed' prayers, how about this.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html
I don't understand most of the terminology, but read the various tests and results, and it is clear there is something going on. The actual paper is available in a link off of the site (at the top) or here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/coronary.html
He does seem a bit biased though, i.e
So, he may have subconsciously omitted bits where God does answer his prayers. That does actually happen btw. People subconsciouly omit things from the retelling to make it seem more amazing, or in this case, less. Notice i say MAY, i'm only making a suggestion.
And if you are going to post links to 'failed' prayers, how about this.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html
I don't understand most of the terminology, but read the various tests and results, and it is clear there is something going on. The actual paper is available in a link off of the site (at the top) or here: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/coronary.html
Like most medical tests, they are subject to random, unaccountable factors. Here are some articles from the United States National Medical Library, a government library:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16569567
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=11761499&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=9375433&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum
People have been trying to prove both sides of the debate with scientific fact, but neither side has ever been successful.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=16569567
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=11761499&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=9375433&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum
People have been trying to prove both sides of the debate with scientific fact, but neither side has ever been successful.
Jonathan;170251 said:
This is like saying that the sun MAY want to kill us and is thus plotting with the atmosphere to build up green-house gases and lead us into an awesome flood. We can't prove it wrong. It might be thinking about it.
Placebo effect. I didn't even bother looking at the website, but if people can take a sugar pill and cure themselves of various sicknesses, people can pray and believe that a higher power is helping them and achieve the same effect. Like the AA. There's not really a good example of this being alltogether true, since you know, we fall back to 'is god there?' thing, but you can't use this as an argument that he/she is either, because either way works just fine in this scenario. EDIT: oh phooey I looked at the link and found my line of reasoning to be wrong. I so hate when my random assumptions turn up nil. I still find a magic website about prayer answering to be highly suspicious, but I digress, I can't exactly prove it false now can I?
Well I've had close personal experiences with faith healing in which I knew the person in question to be diseased, malformed, or whatever before and not afterward. For the sake of privacy and because my claims wouldn't be provable it's pointless to elaborate, but I do have personal reason to believe in it. However not all of the people or the practices have been Christian. I think that what we may be able to take away from the whole experience is that there is something to faith. Nobody has exclusive access to its power, though. A little bit of faith and a sugar pill cures the common cold, a lot of faith might cure cancer. It's fascinating, but the science needs to be removed from religious context as much as possible to learn anything objective.
One can make an argument that faith is simply a mechanic, a yet undetected physical force or cause and effect system. God instructs us on its proper and improper use. Even in the Bible God's people don't have exclusive access to miracles; their miracles are just often more impressive than their opponents because they're doing what God says. For instance in Exodus Pharaoh's sorcerers turn their staffs into stakes, then Moses turns his staff into a snake that eats the other snakes. It's normal for people of one belief system to claim their miracles are real and everyone else's is phony. The real question should always be, "did a miracle happen, and if so let's try to figure out how."
Edit: Note I don't demand anyone give any credibility to my claims in the first paragraph or even take them seriously, that would be asking more than I'd give any of you if you said the same thing to me, even considering that I believe in the possibility. In fact I would discourage any belief in any kind of unexplainable event that wasn't thoroughly documented or experienced first hand.