This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Do you believe in God?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
Sorry, Skree, but whenever those verses pop up in Exodus, the JST has amended versions of them.
Edit: MyTie, feel free to ask questions here.
Post by
Jubilee
To me, Faith is a funny thing.
I don't believe in great metaphysical facts or moral edicts. I don't believe in supreme beings or divine words. These are esoteric concepts that don't factor into my sense of right and wrong, the specific judgments I make every day, or concretely being the person I want to be.
Instead I feel. I feel love. I feel deep solidarity with others. I feel hopeful about humanity. And sometimes I feel alone. Sad. Afraid. All of the emotions, all of the inner peace, all of the turmoil. That is my Faith.
I believe in the beauty of love. That is what makes me happy.
I believe that we all share a bond in humanity. That is what gives me the strength to help others.
I believe that we can find a propose for ourselves together. That is what keeps me alive and going.
I also believe in despair. That is where I discover who I truly am.
I believe in crying late into the night. So I can face my troubles in the morning.
I believe in the power of fear. When I conquer that, I know I can conquer anything.
I cannot believe in something I cannot feel. I cannot trust in something that isn't apparent in my life. I cannot pretend that it's all for something I don't understand. I can only live that life I have and listen to my heart.
Post by
Skreeran
Sorry, Skree, but whenever those verses pop up in Exodus, the JST has amended versions of them.Again, I'm not familiar with the JST. What was it translated from?
Edit: (i.e. was it translated from the Hebrew or was it among those documents revealed to Joseph Smith?)
Edit #2: Either way, hopefully you can see how those who read the non-amended text might find it morally questionable.
Post by
Gone
I said I hated him
Keeping in mind that I have no intention of trying to convince you otherwise, could you briefly explain which specific things have led you to this conclusion?
How bout the millions of innocent people he's murdered (or had someone else kill), simply for not worshipping him, or something along those lines? (And, to my knowledge, he has no remorse for these murders)
Can you give me an example of this?
I would expect you, a christian, to know, but I guess I need to educate you:
He killed all the egyptian firstborn for.......no discernible reason.
"Exodus 12:29
And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. "
Just for the hell of it apparently. If that's not enough, here's some more:
"2 Kings 2:23
And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2 Kings 2:24
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. "
Had a bunch of children brutally killed by bears for.....mocking a man's baldness. I mean, REALLY?
"2 Kings 17:25
And so it was at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the LORD: therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which slew some of them."
Murdered people for not fearing him.
BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!
"2 Kings 17:26
Wherefore they spake to the king of Assyria, saying, The nations which thou hast removed, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land: therefore he hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land."
More people murdered by lions, this time for not being aware of god.
He also apparently killed everyone in Soddom and Gommorah, because some homosexuals lived there. Also:
"20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Ya, I don't think I need to give any more descriptions of this insanity, there's more, but I don't think it's even necessary, this is already bad enough.
That doesn't exactly come out to millions of people. which was the original statement you said that I called you out on.
And if there is a God, then him killing people isn't exactly murder. We kill lesser beings all the time. I realize how it might sound, and I don't mean to go all "WE ARE ANTS" here, but really, what is it that makes killing a human being murder? We have higher intelligence? Compared to who? If God created the universe, then there is a much more vast difference between his intelligence and ours than there is between us and any animal. For that matter comparing us with an amoeba would be too sophisticated an example.
Set aside that more often than not the people God killed in the old testament had the chance to save themselves, and passed it over. What people always fail to realize is that if there is a God, we are not his equals. And even if every word of the old testament is true, then he is still kinder to us than we are to our inferiors. So does this mean that you hate humanity to?
Post by
Monday
Sorry, Skree, but whenever those verses pop up in Exodus, the JST has amended versions of them.Again, I'm not familiar with the JST. What was it translated from?
Edit: (i.e. was it translated from the Hebrew or was it among those documents revealed to Joseph Smith?)
Edit #2: Either way, hopefully you can see how those who read the non-amended text might find it morally questionable.
It was translated by Joseph Smith through direct revelation from God. He was ocmmanded to go back over the Bible and amend parts of it, such as that, because their true meaning had been lost.
Post by
MyTie
Edit: MyTie, feel free to ask questions here.Was Joseph Smith bound to the teachings of the Bible? Was the first century Church's teachings inadequate? Why did Joseph Smith plagiarize parts of the KJV Bible and give credit to an angel (including the italicized parts that were put in centuries after the Greek was first written)? Was the teachings from Mormonism that Blacks are lesser beings than whites correct, or was that incorrect? Does God change His mind about what is right and what is wrong, and bear in mind I'm not talking about different covenants He makes with people, but I'm talking about the nature of morality? Were the three witnesses who saw the golden plates "blessed"? Who was wrong on the translation of the Egyptian transcripts, Egyptologists or Church officials? Did the Nephalites see cows when they came to the Americas, prior to 1500 AD? Is it right or is it wrong for a man to marry multiple women?
That's all I've got on the top of my head. I'll check this later after I drive home.
Post by
Monday
Was Joseph Smith bound to the teachings of the Bible?
Clarify what you mean by "bound."
Was the first century Church's teachings inadequate?
Yes. They didn't have the full truths of the Gospel once the last apostles died.
Why did Joseph Smith plagiarize parts of the KJV Bible and give credit to an angel (including the italicized parts that were put in centuries after the Greek was first written)?
Expound, please.
Was the teachings from Mormonism that Blacks are lesser beings than whites correct, or was that incorrect?
There were no teachings saying that blacks were lesser than whites, merely that they were barred from the priesthood. It was assumed that black skin was the mark of Cain, which was later amended. However, Joseph Smith ordained black members to the priesthood. It was later teachings that held to the standards, which have since been abolished.
Does God change His mind about what is right and what is wrong, and bear in mind I'm not talking about different covenants He makes with people, but I'm talking about the nature of morality?
There are some eternal laws that never change, and some that are more fluid (for example, it is a commandment among the youth to not date before the age of 16. That certainly wasn't present in earlier days, but it fits in the context of the world today).
Were the three witnesses who saw the golden plates "blessed"?
Blessed in what way?
Who was wrong on the translation of the Egyptian transcripts, Egyptologists or Church officials?
Which church?
Did the Nephalites see cows when they came to the Americas, prior to 1500 AD?
Nephites*. And honestly, I do not know. It is possible that they saw some indigenous animal which we call "cow" because it is the closest equivalent in modern language.
For example, there are numerous references in the Book of Mormon to a weapon called a "cimeter." Nobody quite knows what it was, except that it was often paired with the sword (e.g. they took up their swords and cimeters). It hasn't been likened to any weapon we have now because there is no analogue.
Likewise, we have the cow, which could be a stand in for the animals that they had.
Alternately, the Jaredites are said, in the Book of Ether, to have taken their animals with them when they crossed the ocean in sealed barges to reach ancient America. They could have taken cows across, bred them and eventually have them turn wild after the fall of the people of Jared, where they were discovered by the Nephites.
Is it right or is it wrong for a man to marry multiple women?
It is wrong on this earth.
Post by
PTsICU
You want evidence of something that someone has faith in? That's a bit contradictory. Why not ask for evidence of something there is no evidence for?
The reason I believe in a creator, is because love resembles art. Art requires a creator. The reason I've arrived at Christianity is because, based on my understanding of a God that wants to be loved, is that love would require communication from God. Based on the need for communication, that would have had to have been effective, and there from the beginning. That eliminates new religions. The Bible and the Koran are left. The Bible reflects the teachings of a God that wants to be loved (greatest commandment). Further study of the Bible has led me to the understanding I have.
It just seemed the logical conclusion.
1. Not really sure that helps, but appreciate the answer.
2. I don't fully understand how you get love resembles art, or what that means exactly. And communication from God? Are you talking about written scripture, or your own experiences here?
3. Thanks for the insight. I don't understand how you got those views, nor do I agree with them, but appreciate the explanation on your part.
Post by
PTsICU
I thought I was keeping it civil. I guess people have become so sensitive that supposed "leading" questions are viewed with animosity.
It's not that it is a leading question, but that it is a loaded question. Sort of like "Why is it that you smell like crap?".
No one likes loaded questions.
Sorry you feel that way. I was just looking for honest views of how other people think the way they do. If my questions seem unworthy of your attention, by all means ignore them in the future.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
@Sold
Then what makes us different? We kill less beings all the time, and are a lot more cruel to our inferiors than God is to us in the old testament. I ask again, do you hate humanity too?
Post by
Skreeran
@Sold
Then what makes us different? We kill less beings all the time, and are a lot more cruel to our inferiors than God is to us in the old testament. I ask again, do you hate humanity too?Here's the thing: You present the argument of God vs. Man as a scaled up version of Man vs. Ant in terms of morality, with the central point being that God is far, far above us in terms of intelligence and moral judgment. This particular analogy is also frequently used in science fiction as a reasoning for aliens not to explain their technology or morality. But it really doesn't work.
The biggest problem with it is that human being have passed an arbitrary (for this discussion at least) point in intelligence where we are capable of thinking, emoting, and making judgments based on morality (as opposed to survival or instinct). The ant in this argument is not only incapable of understanding me, but I am also incapable of understanding it because of a combination of lack of communication in the ant and a lack of translation in me. Ants are capable of leaving an reading pheromone trails, but (to my knowledge), an individual ant acts basically as a robot, lacking cognitive ability in favor if reactionary instinct. This all goes to say that the ant in the Man vs. Ant argument is not only incapable of understanding the man, but incapable of communicating with the manat all, and has no emotions or morals as far as we know. Meanwhile, Man in the Man vs. God argument is demonstrably capable of emotions and morality, and by your claim is also capable of both communicating with God and being communicated to by God. So because I am human, and humans are incapable of communicating with ants, I could not explain anything to an ant, nor frame it in terms of their emotions and morality because they have none that I am aware of. Meanwhile, God should be able to do all of those, because He is supposedly able to communicate with us and presumably would be aware of our perception of the world.
So that (hopefully) addresses the biggest fundamental flaw in the And vs. Man vs. God arguments. The other thing I take issue with is only applicable to some interpretations of God, but is prevalent enough to merit a look. If I go kill half of a colony of ants for my own reasons, I cannot ask or expect the ants to love me in spite of it (ignoring that we already talked about how ants don't have observable emotions). If I told the ants that I was deliberately going to stir up a rival anthill and cause them to rebel against me just so I could burn it and show off my power, I would not expect the ants to see it as a gesture from all-loving Man, nor could I even justify it by my own morality.
Really, it's just that comparing us to ants does us a disservice, and doesn't answer the problem; it just pushes it away and tries to ignore it. Maybe God (assuming he exists) has his own reasons for doing what he does, but surely if he is so far above us, he must be smart enough to understand that explaining his actions in a way that violates our own morality (that some believe he instilled in us) will not inspire love in us.
Post by
Gone
Here's the thing: You present the argument of God vs. Man as a scaled up version of Man vs. Ant in terms of morality, with the central point being that God is far, far above us in terms of intelligence and moral judgment. This particular analogy is also frequently used in science fiction as a reasoning for aliens not to explain their technology or morality. But it really doesn't work.
Actually I was just pointing out that the reasons Sold gave for "hating" the Christian God are also present in human beings. So by the logic he gave, he should also hate humanity. I wasn't really making an argument about the justification of God's actions in the old testament. For the sake of argument though I'll still respond to your points, since it's an interesting discussion.
The biggest problem with it is that human being have passed an arbitrary (for this discussion at least) point in intelligence where we are capable of thinking, emoting, and making judgments based on morality (as opposed to survival or instinct). The ant in this argument is not only incapable of understanding me, but I am also incapable of understanding it because of a combination of lack of communication in the ant and a lack of translation in me. Ants are capable of leaving an reading pheromone trails, but (to my knowledge), an individual ant acts basically as a robot, lacking cognitive ability in favor if reactionary instinct. This all goes to say that the ant in the Man vs. Ant argument is not only incapable of understanding the man, but incapable of communicating with the manat all, and has no emotions or morals as far as we know. Meanwhile, Man in the Man vs. God argument is demonstrably capable of emotions and morality, and by your claim is also capable of both communicating with God and being communicated to by God. So because I am human, and humans are incapable of communicating with ants, I could not explain anything to an ant, nor frame it in terms of their emotions and morality because they have none that I am aware of. Meanwhile, God should be able to do all of those, because He is supposedly able to communicate with us and presumably would be aware of our perception of the world.
Well first of all, the main problem with your argument lies in the very first line. This intelligence check that we passed, we are the ones who determined it. We are judging it by our own intelligence, with no known species available of higher intelligence to compare ourselves to.
To use one of the examples you gave, lets say there were aliens out there that were vastly more advanced and intelligent than we are. And I mean really more intelligent, not the bull!@#$ you see in sci fi movies where they still get outsmarted in the end by the main action hero. Lets say these aliens communicate with each other telepathically. They can send and receive messages to each other at the speed of thought. They never had to develop a formal language, and can have entire conversations in the time it takes us to form a single syllable.
Couldn't these aliens use the same argument against us that you used against the ants and their pheromones? They would look at our thought process and our crude way of communicating by interpreting sound vibrations, and think we are just as crude as we do certain animals of higher intelligence. I doubt that we would pass their "intelligence check" any more than a chimp or a dolphin passes our own.
Finally, you are wrong when you say that we can't communicate with lower species. We can give commands that a dog or cat or horse will understand, we can communicate with apes through sign language, we can even replicate those ant pheromones you mentioned in a lab and manipulate their behavior.
Who is to say these crude forms of communication are any different than the way God communicates with people in the Bible? Obviously a God capable of creating the entire universe has a thought process vastly beyond what we are capable of understanding, and with higher intelligence comes a higher understanding of morality.
You say that we are capable of understanding morality and communication. But the problem is, you are a human being saying this. Compared with God's understanding, ours is likely just as feeble as the ant.
You say that an ant is like a robot, not capable of thinking or morality, and compared to us that is true. But when you compare the ant to a bacterium, it is a creature of unquestionable intelligence. That same comparison may apply in reverse to us. We may seem to be the masters of the universe to ourselves, but compared against any monotheistic God we would be less than the bacterium compared with the ant.
The other thing I take issue with is only applicable to some interpretations of God, but is prevalent enough to merit a look. If I go kill half of a colony of ants for my own reasons, I cannot ask or expect the ants to love me in spite of it (ignoring that we already talked about how ants don't have observable emotions). If I told the ants that I was deliberately going to stir up a rival anthill and cause them to rebel against me just so I could burn it and show off my power, I would not expect the ants to see it as a gesture from all-loving Man, nor could I even justify it by my own morality.
First I want to point out, that with the existence of an afterlife, death becomes kind of less of a big deal, especially to an entity that operates primarily from the other side. I also wanna point out, that most of the people mentioned earlier are given chance after chance to save themselves, and a lot wind up throwing the opportunity back in the face of either God or whatever profit he is communicating his will through.
Really, it's just that comparing us to ants does us a disservice, and doesn't answer the problem; it just pushes it away and tries to ignore it. Maybe God (assuming he exists) has his own reasons for doing what he does, but surely if he is so far above us, he must be smart enough to understand that explaining his actions in a way that violates our own morality (that some believe he instilled in us) will not inspire love in us.
Your talking about morality like it's a universal truth, when it is pretty much the opposite. Most of the basic moral agreements we have, God set down as well. Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, etc. The actions you claim violate a persons morality, may be well in line with another persons morality.
And again, this assumes that we are capable of understanding Gods reasons. When you spank a toddler, or refuse to let him gorge himself on sweets, he will think you are the cruelest thing in the world, but that's just because hes not capable of understanding your better reasons.
Post by
Skreeran
Still trying not to get sucked into this thread, because religious debate always leaves me exhausted, but I'll give a small reply to one particular point.
First I want to point out, that with the existence of an afterlife, death becomes kind of less of a big deal, especially to an entity that operates primarily from the other side. I also wanna point out, that most of the people mentioned earlier are given chance after chance to save themselves, and a lot wind up throwing the opportunity back in the face of either God or whatever profit he is communicating his will through.A: Death returns to being a big deal when you believe in Hell, a negative afterlife.
B: In the Egyptians case, they did not get a chance, not even Pharaoh got a chance because God hardened his heart and made his choice for him.
C: If your god murders children for the express purpose of causing suffering in their parents (assuming their parents aren't firstborn as well), and the suffering of those parents is only used to sway the mind of a single man, and when that single man's mind only made the choices it had because your god wanted to show off his "wonders" to the people of Israel, then that is not a god that I could work for, much less love, even if I did believe in Him. I don't care how you justify it, that is just not something I can ever, ever, ever get behind.
Post by
Gone
A: Death returns to being a big deal when you believe in Hell, a negative afterlife.
Already been over this. Hell is only ever mentioned extremely vaguely in the old testament when all of these things took place, and most of the time it was a mistranslation of the word sheol.
B: In the Egyptians case, they did not get a chance, not even Pharaoh got a chance because God hardened his heart and made his choice for him.
I recall God being downright magnanimous with the Pharaoh up until the end. God sent plague after plague and he still refused to set his slaves free.
C: If your god murders children for the express purpose of causing suffering in their parents (assuming their parents aren't firstborn as well), and the suffering of those parents is only used to sway the mind of a single man, and when that single man's mind only made the choices it had because your god wanted to show off his "wonders" to the people of Israel, then that is not a god that I could work for, much less love, even if I did believe in Him. I don't care how you justify it, that is just not something I can ever, ever, ever get behind.
First of all, murder is defined as one human being killing another. God doesn't murder people.
Second, to look back at the previous posts, I very much doubt God ever killed a child, then sent its soul to Hell.
EDIT: I actually had a longer response but dropped it. I get exhausted debating this stuff as well.
Post by
Skreeran
I recall God being downright magnanimous with the Pharaoh up until the end. God sent plague after plague and he still refused to set his slaves free.Do I need to bring up the verses I already quoted again? Plague refused because God hardened his heart. Would he have refused if God hadn't? Who knows. What we do know is what it says in Exodus. God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he could send the plagues and show off his power.
Post by
asakawa
I struggle with the notion that in India 61 out of every 1000 children under five die each year. Many of them die in poverty and pain. Now due to simple geography and chance they were born in a country that is over 80% Hindu (and only around 2% Christian). Thus the vast majority of them follow a polytheistic religion and not Christianity (in, indeed, any child can be said to follow a religion at all).
Mark 16:16 says:
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."
I've seen a defence of this that says that this only refers to those who have heard and understood but rejected the truth. My issues are firstly that that seems like lawyering out of a sticky problem since it's quite a clear, simple statement and the
will
to read it in that way is required to see it that way. And secondly, this makes it sound like people are generally better off left alone so they don't fall into the trap of applying critical thinking to the issue and thereby condemning themselves or (as in the case I'm presenting above) being raised in an entirely different tradition, culture and religion; trusting the ardent beliefs of everyone around them who believe in the Hindu gods.
I just don't see any good in this concept and it's an example of why, for me, this religion (as do the others) have the clear fingerprints of man on them.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
1069282
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
I recall God being downright magnanimous with the Pharaoh up until the end. God sent plague after plague and he still refused to set his slaves free.
Ok... Which plague are we talking about?
Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_
(disease)
Edit2: Hmmm won't allowe me to link the whole thing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt
Post by
1069282
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.