What Is God Made From?

[floo]

This would be at the same time as some other Christians were supporting, defending and justifying slavery, yes?

No, they were using their own distorted logic to override the true Christian message - Jesus commanded us to love one another.

It is a pity the guy's supposed 'father' doesn't know the meaning of the word 'love', if it is as depicted in the Bible! If the Biblical literalist's version of it is true, it must be enjoying the devastation in Nepal, sending yet another massive earthquake to add to their woes! It probably has its hand on its dangly bits getting off on their suffering!

[Shaker]

So are you stating as a matter of fact that these Christians didn't support, defend and justify slavery, Alan?

I simply pointed out that it was a group of devout Christians who helped to bring an end to slavery, by following the command of Jesus that we should love one another.

The "Christians" who supported slavery were not following the words of Jesus.

So you say they weren't Christians, but they thought themselves to be and would have said so.

So who's right?

[Shaker]

The evidence of God's love is truly overwhelming.

No it isn't. If it was merely good, never mind overwhelming, you would be able to point me to this evidence; you would be able to demonstrate it.

The sadness is that so many are blind to it.

Who's sad? I'm not sad. You may well be. I could just easily, and with vastly more reason, say that I'm sad you're not a rational, clear-thinking individual free of the fatuities and twaddle that characterises your thinking. While there's certainly an element of that - I do feel sorry for religious people; as a meta-atheist I feel sure that at some deeper level they must know that they're fooling themselves with nonsense - as long as they don't intrude upon other people we just have to let them get on with it.

[floo]

If you could just allow yourself to invite God into your life, you would have all the evidence you need.  Once you discover God's love, there is no going back.

You obviously didn't read - or understand - torridon's post. He said he wants evidence, not the unevidenced assumption of the existence of the very thing he's seeking evidence for in the first place.

The evidence of God's love is truly overwhelming.   The sadness is that so many are blind to it.

YOU LIE!

[Shaker]

I don't think he's lying - to lie you have to tell a falsehood and know it to be false, not merely to state something but be honestly mistaken. There has to be a deliberate, conscious and explicit intent to mislead and deceive, which I don't think applies to Alan.

As hard as it may be to believe, all the indications are that Alan genuinely seems to believe what he says. He can't be accused of lying. I've never heard any one human being trot out so many bald assertions, and his ability to reel out one logical fallacy after another is breathtaking, but I don't think he's fibbing.

[Alan Burns]

So are you stating as a matter of fact that these Christians didn't support, defend and justify slavery, Alan?

I simply pointed out that it was a group of devout Christians who helped to bring an end to slavery, by following the command of Jesus that we should love one another.

The "Christians" who supported slavery were not following the words of Jesus.

So you say they weren't Christians, but they thought themselves to be and would have said so.

So who's right?

Christians are not immune from sin!

[horsethorn]

So are you stating as a matter of fact that these Christians didn't support, defend and justify slavery, Alan?

I simply pointed out that it was a group of devout Christians who helped to bring an end to slavery, by following the command of Jesus that we should love one another.

The "Christians" who supported slavery were not following the words of Jesus.

So you say they weren't Christians, but they thought themselves to be and would have said so.

So who's right?

Christians are not immune from sin!

Including you?

Are you immune to deception?
Are you immune to misunderstanding?

ht

[Alan Burns]

Who's sad? I'm not sad. You may well be.

It is God who is sad, because people still reject Him after He suffered and died to deliver us from evil.

I feel sure that at some deeper level they must know that they're fooling themselves with nonsense

You can't get to any deeper level than having a personal relationship with God.

as long as they don't intrude upon other people we just have to let them get on with it.

remember you are posting on a Christian thread   

[floo]

I apologise for saying Alan is lying as no doubt he genuinely believes what he is saying is the truth, even though there is no evidence to verify it!

[Alan Burns]

Christians are not immune from sin!

Including you?

Are you immune to deception?
Are you immune to misunderstanding?

ht

I would never claim to be immune from sin, but I am called to witness to what I sincerely believe to be the truth.

[horsethorn]

Christians are not immune from sin!

Including you?

Are you immune to deception?
Are you immune to misunderstanding?

ht

I would never claim to be immune from sin, but I am called to witness to what I sincerely believe to be the truth.

Good, that's one question that you answered. Just these two left:

Are you immune to deception?
Are you immune to misunderstanding?

ht

[Alan Burns]

Christians are not immune from sin!

Including you?

Are you immune to deception?
Are you immune to misunderstanding?

ht

I would never claim to be immune from sin, but I am called to witness to what I sincerely believe to be the truth.

Good, that's one question that you answered. Just these two left:

Are you immune to deception?
Are you immune to misunderstanding?

ht

I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deception

[Shaker]

It is God who is sad, because people still reject Him after He suffered and died to deliver us from evil.

Well that's its own fault, since presumably according to your belief system this entity both wants to change that state of affairs and is perfectly capable of doing so, yet chooses not to. No sympathy there I'm afraid.

You can't get to any deeper level than having a personal relationship with God.

All in the mind, Al.

[Shaker]

I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deception

How do you know this to be the case, Alan?

Not for the first time you've declared yourself to be incapable of error, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that there are now two mammals on the planet who claim to be infallible.

[torridon]

The great sadness is that you do not realise just what a wonderful gift you have been given.  You are so much more than a complex collection of matter driven by the soulless determinism of natural events.  God has put you in control of an amazing machine through which you have the power to change the world.  I hope and pray that one day you will come to realise the simple truth that God loves you, and He has given you control of your own destiny.

Ah, but you never have any justification for your position Alan, all you give is assertions of your beliefs.  I think you have been wrong footed by a set of appealing beliefs.  To convince me, it needs something stronger than appeal, it needs compelling evidence.

If you could just allow yourself to invite God into your life, you would have all the evidence you need.  Once you discover God's love, there is no going back.

Well, I tried this, many times, when younger, but nothing ever happened.  It wouldn't work for me now as I can't see myself enjoying beliefs that I don't believe. If it works for you, I guess there must be an element of 'suspending your disbelief' going on and maybe you can make that work. I find I have less and less ability to do that, the older I get. 10 years ago I could still enjoy Dr Who; now I don't enjoy it any more, I just get the sense that I am wasting my time with something silly; that's because my ability to suspend my disbelief is reducing with age and maturity.

[Alan Burns]

I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deception

How do you know this to be the case, Alan?

Not for the first time you've declared yourself to be incapable of error, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that there are now two mammals on the planet who claim to be infallible.

My relationship with God is the foundation of what I am.  Take that away, and I am nothing - just a blob of matter falling through space and time with no significance whatsoever.  The most fundamental reality that I perceive is that God brought me into existence and has made Himself known to me.

[floo]

I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deception

How do you know this to be the case, Alan?

Not for the first time you've declared yourself to be incapable of error, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that there are now two mammals on the planet who claim to be infallible.

My relationship with God is the foundation of what I am.  Take that away, and I am nothing - just a blob of matter falling through space and time with no significance whatsoever.  The most fundamental reality that I perceive is that God brought me into existence and has made Himself known to me.

I can see you wish to believe that to be true, but you have no evidence, apart from that in your own mind, that it is so.

[Enki]

From Alan's  post 170:

The real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong.  Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it.  And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.

Alan,
Am I to assume then that if a person acts according to their conscience(as you put it) then they are making a 'right' decision?

I ask because it should be obvious to you that many people can have conflicting ideas and hence make conflicting decisions on moral subjects.

For instance, I strongly support the 'Right to Die' movement. I have no guilt feelings attached to my position on this at all. Others strongly disagree with the 'Right to Die' movement. Presumably they feel their position is right, too.

So, whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?

All will come clear when you accept God's "Amazing Grace"

A particularly ineffective response, Alan. To me it simply illustrates your lack of ability to deal with the question.  A bit of a cop out, I suggest.

We are all prone to using our human "logic" to override what our deep conscience knows is  right or wrong.  I would assume that Hitler somehow managed to justify his actions with the disturbing logic of promoting a superior race.  When we accept God's amazing grace, the Devil's scales of deception will fall away.

Unfortunately Alan I am not talking about human logic here, I am talking about those inner feelings which you call 'conscience'. There are many people whose 'conscience' exhorts them to support a certain 'moral' stance which can be diametrically opposed to others, who would claim that their 'conscience' leads them to accept a different 'moral' stance, and with the same integrity. People of any or no religion fit into either of these categories.

Hence I would question the whole idea of 'conscience' being the arbiter of what is right/wrong in any objective sense at all.

And so, the honest question I asked you, and one which you have not provided any satisfactory answer to, is whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?

All I have received back from you are platitudes which simply reflect your conviction that by accepting your version of the Christian God this will make everything clear to me. This is simply an assertion that you are right, and other people with opposing convictions must be wrong. Alan, this is no way to construct an argument, especially to people like me, who are not party to your assertions.

Remember I have no belief in any God(or Devil) unless and until evidence accrues that any exist. Hence such a sentence as "When we accept God's amazing grace, the Devil's scales of deception will fall away." is of no particular use or meaning to me. If you really want to connect with others who do not share your beliefs, I would humbly suggest you attempt to engage cogently with arguments and questions rather than rely on simple assertions and a proselytising attitude.

Unless, of course, you are incapable of doing so...

[Alan Burns]

Unfortunately Alan I am not talking about human logic here, I am talking about those inner feelings which you call 'conscience'. There are many people whose 'conscience' exhorts them to support a certain 'moral' stance which can be diametrically opposed to others, who would claim that their 'conscience' leads them to accept a different 'moral' stance, and with the same integrity. People of any or no religion fit into either of these categories.

Hence I would question the whole idea of 'conscience' being the arbiter of what is right/wrong in any objective sense at all.

And so, the honest question I asked you, and one which you have not provided any satisfactory answer to, is whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?

All I have received back from you are platitudes which simply reflect your conviction that by accepting your version of the Christian God this will make everything clear to me. This is simply an assertion that you are right, and other people with opposing convictions must be wrong. Alan, this is no way to construct an argument, especially to people like me, who are not party to your assertions.

Remember I have no belief in any God(or Devil) unless and until evidence accrues that any exist. Hence such a sentence as "When we accept God's amazing grace, the Devil's scales of deception will fall away." is of no particular use or meaning to me. If you really want to connect with others who do not share your beliefs, I would humbly suggest you attempt to engage cogently with arguments and questions rather than rely on simple assertions and a proselytising attitude.

Unless, of course, you are incapable of doing so...

I believe that every human being has a natural awareness of what is good and what is bad, but they also have a natural tendency to override this awareness in order to indulge in some form of self centred activity.  Being a Christian, I can identify the awareness of good and bad with our God given conscience, and our tendency to override it as the temptation of the Devil.  The Devil will use any logical argument to tempt humans into doing what is against God's will.

[Sebastian Toe]

Alan, is your god given concience separate from you god given soul?

[Shaker]

I believe that every human being has a natural awareness of what is good and what is bad, but they also have a natural tendency to override this awareness in order to indulge in some form of self centred activity. Being a Christian, I can identify the awareness of good and bad with our God given conscience, and our tendency to override it as the temptation of the Devil. The Devil will use any logical argument to tempt humans into doing what is against God's will.

No, Alan.

Just no.

The BIB makes all the difference. As a Christian you are committed to the idea that the you can "identify" "the awareness of good and bad with our God given conscience." I am an atheist-agnostic-antitheist; I believe that morality, matters of conscience, can be explained more simply, more elegantly, more accurately - there's that there old Occam's Razor again - by reference to our primate ancestry. This is a matter of scientific-evolutionary-historical record. It's not an opinion; it's not a belief; it's a matter of established science in the fields of evolutionary biology, ethology, anthropology ...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deception

How do you know this to be the case, Alan?

Not for the first time you've declared yourself to be incapable of error, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that there are now two mammals on the planet who claim to be infallible.

The obvious flaw with your argument here Mr S. is no one is declaring themselves incapable of error. You are mistaking a ''capable of error'' to an ''always in error''.

[Shaker]

I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deception

How do you know this to be the case, Alan?

Not for the first time you've declared yourself to be incapable of error, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that there are now two mammals on the planet who claim to be infallible.

The obvious flaw with your argument here Mr S. is no one is declaring themselves incapable of error. You are mistaking a ''capable of error'' to an ''always in error''.

Sorry Vladdles, that won't wash. "Always in error" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. I don't know why you introduced the phrase, unless it was as a straw man and that wouldn't be like you, would it?

Alan has said - not just on this occasion but at least once in the past - that he is free from error, incapable of being deceived. His own words: "I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deception."

Earlier on horsethorn asked him if he is incapable of deception. Alan replied that while he may be capable of being deceived by other people, he cannot be deceived about his relationship with what he thinks is his god. In other words he believes that he is infallible on this point and in this regard.

Try reading what he actually says rather than what you think I think he has said. It'll stand you in good stead.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I believe that every human being has a natural awareness of what is good and what is bad, but they also have a natural tendency to override this awareness in order to indulge in some form of self centred activity. Being a Christian, I can identify the awareness of good and bad with our God given conscience, and our tendency to override it as the temptation of the Devil. The Devil will use any logical argument to tempt humans into doing what is against God's will.

No, Alan.

Just no.

The BIB makes all the difference. As a Christian you are committed to the idea that the you can "identify" "the awareness of good and bad with our God given conscience." I am an atheist-agnostic-antitheist; I believe that morality, matters of conscience, can be explained more simply, more elegantly, more accurately - there's that there old Occam's Razor again - by reference to our primate ancestry. This is a matter of scientific-evolutionary-historical record. It's not an opinion; it's not a belief; it's a matter of established science in the fields of evolutionary biology, ethology, anthropology ...

I'm afraid that being an atheistiagnostiantheistautist has meant that a kind of self enforced ignorance has left you with a stunted anthropology & conception of morality. In other words it's not so much that you don't believe in in other moralities, it's that you only really have conception of one and here is where your argument collapses. You refer to ethology and evolutionary biology. You forget that ethology is only the study of behaviour without imposing any moral judgment and applying human morals to  other species (Proto-morality) is anthropomorphism of proportions that would make even Walt Disney turn pale....Hi Ho.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deception

How do you know this to be the case, Alan?

Not for the first time you've declared yourself to be incapable of error, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that there are now two mammals on the planet who claim to be infallible.

The obvious flaw with your argument here Mr S. is no one is declaring themselves incapable of error. You are mistaking a ''capable of error'' to an ''always in error''.

Sorry Vladdles, that won't wash. "Always in error" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. I don't know why you introduced the phrase, unless it was as a straw man and that wouldn't be like you, would it?

Alan has said - not just on this occasion but at least once in the past - that he is free from error, incapable of being deceived. His own words: "I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deception."

Earlier on horsethorn asked him if he is incapable of deception. Alan replied that while he may be capable of being deceived by other people, he cannot be deceived about his relationship with what he thinks is his god. In other words he believes that he is infallible on this point and in this regard.

Try reading what he actually says rather than what you think I think he has said. It'll stand you in good stead.

Mr Thorne was making the same leap as you were.