Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

I could consider that if it were not for the fact that he just goes on and on and on posting the same stuff with no indication that he has even tried to consider the arguments in response to his - well, you can't call them arguments.

Why does he keep on posting on this thread? Where is it getting him? Does he think he is persuading anyone out there, i.e. browsers perhaps?  Does he think that he is earning bonus points for heaven? What would persuade him to give up posting on this thread, I wonder?!!

And the bottom line for me is always: if he's teaching children this stuff as truth, how can he justify it to himself?

I'd take a guess about where you say: 'he just goes on and on and on posting the same stuff with no indication that he has even tried to consider the arguments in response to his - well, you can't call them arguments.

I'm not sure of the technical term but he makes the use of the biblical equivalent of a kiddies game something like "I'm three times better at that than whatever you say", in just the same way he uses all of the usual, the multiplicity of biblical get out clauses, they're a bit catch 22 ish, and you have to remember all of these catch 22 ish parts of his manual are really deeply embedded inside his head, plus in your case Susan you're always invoking the devil and probably do little jobs for him at the weekends, so he has to reject the anti theist content of any that differ with the said manual, they can't even be considered.

The trouble with him spreading his babble on to vulnerable young children, is more than likely he thinks he's doing them a favour and the rest I've no need to spell out to you, I can assure you that's the bit that gets to me more than the rest of the drivel he keeps coming out with, I don't know how you get over that one, anything you might do there would be inclined to almost parallel ethnic cleansing.

Kind regards ippy     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Paul told slaves to honour their masters!

I think antitheists like yourself have a bit of a Spartacus delusion on this one fancying that had they been around at that time they would have ''done a Kirk Douglas,only better''.

The likelier truth is that the wealthiest were slave owners and the poorest were poorly treated slaves.

[Stranger]

I think antitheists like yourself have a bit of a Spartacus delusion on this one fancying that had they been around at that time they would have ''done a Kirk Douglas,only better''.

The likelier truth is that the wealthiest were slave owners and the poorest were poorly treated slaves.

All of which has bugger all to do with the point; that the bible condones slavery.

[Alan Burns]

But not, it would seem, the courage, honesty, or ability (in some combination) to face up to logical arguments that clearly undermine your claims...

I know that any logical analysis from a secular point of view will come up with your conclusions, but you do not take into account the God given power of the human soul to have the freedom to make conscious choices.

Sorry, but no amount of convoluted, short sighted human logic can take away the reality that I have the freedom to make this statement.

[Alan Burns]

Firstly, you don't have any superiority over everyone else to justify your claim to just 'know', implying others are somehow lesser beings.  I don't feel like I am just a blob of star debris either, but with a little humility we can stand our ego down and learn from others.  Nobody 'knows' anything with 100% objectivity; all we can do is , and this surely must be true for all of us.

But our freedom to consciously assess evidence in the light of our personal experience to come to an opinion is in itself evidence that we have been given the freedom to do this.  Can you honestly say that this conscious assessment is all done in the sub conscious before we become aware of it?

Secondly, why keep insisting that the forces of nature are unguided ?  The idea that a god with intentions and purpose in mind would create a random chaotic cosmos as a backdrop into which some secondary act of creation is then required to bring life into being despite the antipathetic nature of the broader host cosmos makes no sense to me.  If you want to believe in a god, surely it would be better to frame it as the forces or nature not being chaotic, not random, not unguided at all, but are in fact chosen purposefully to bring about life. Think of the beautiful symmetry of a spiral arm galaxy, or of a simple snowflake; these don't look like 'chaos' to me, they look like order, and yet they are the direct consequences the simple insentient forces of nature.  The laws of nature give rise to all manner of diversity and beauty at the levels of both life and non-life, why should a believer in god be so dismissive of his creation ?

Nature, with all its perceived beauty and awesome wonder is God's creation.   The ability for it to be consciously manipulated by acts of human will or God's will is obviously what God intended.  I would not have it any other way, because I am in no position to dictate to God how He should do things.

[Stranger]

I know that any logical analysis from a secular point of view will come up with your conclusions, but you do not take into account the God given power of the human soul to have the freedom to make conscious choices.

Just trotting out empty platitudes like "the God given power of the human soul" doesn't make the logic go away. You are still running away from logic. If you have a refutation that involves some actual logic behind the phrase, then provide your own analysis based on it.

As it is, you might as well be saying "I know it's totally illogical but god's magic, innit."

Sorry, but no amount of convoluted, short sighted human logic can take away the reality that I have the freedom to make this statement.

Once again you demonstrate that you're not even paying attention.

• I do not, and never have, denied your freedom to make any statement you wish.

• If you think the logic is convoluted and short-sighted, point out why. Any fool can just say an argument is convoluted and short-sighted.

[Alan Burns]

But I was under the impression that you think you can do, say or believe anything, no matter what has happened or you've learnt previously?  That would mean you can believe something that you know isn't true!

You know, your free will and all that.

No
Our conscious choices are influenced and constrained by past events, but not entirely dictated by them.  Freedom to make conscious choices does not imply unlimited freedom.

[Alan Burns]

• I do not, and never have, denied your freedom to make any statement you wish.

But what drives my choice to make this statement?
If you insist that it is entirely pre determined, it is not a free choice but an inevitable reaction, with no freedom involved.

[Gordon]

I know that any logical analysis from a secular point of view will come up with your conclusions, but you do not take into account the God given power of the human soul to have the freedom to make conscious choices.

Sorry, but no amount of convoluted, short sighted human logic can take away the reality that I have the freedom to make this statement.

Logic is neither secular nor theistic: and you should know this by now, and that you seem not to just indicates just how utterly illogical your soul nonsense is.

[Stranger]

But what drives my choice to make this statement?
If you insist that it is entirely pre determined, it is not a free choice but an inevitable reaction, with no freedom involved.

If it is predetermined by your actual nature, the person you are, all of your nature and nurture, your experience, your faith, your desires, your likes and dislikes and so on, applied to the situation at hand, in what way is it not your free choice?

To repeat the argument: if all of that - every single reason for your choice, in minute detail, does not determine your choice but leaves open a number of options, then there can be no further reasons for you to make one choice or another and something that happens for no reason is random. How can randomness increase your freedom?

[Maeght]

Alan, do you understand the points being made to you? If so could you summarise what that is. You may not agree with them, but do you get what people are saying? I ask because in your posts you ask the same questions, get the same responses, then ask the same questions again.

[floo]

I know that any logical analysis from a secular point of view will come up with your conclusions, but you do not take into account the God given power of the human soul to have the freedom to make conscious choices.

Sorry, but no amount of convoluted, short sighted human logic can take away the reality that I have the freedom to make this statement.

You keep banging on about the god given power of the soul, but never provide any verifiable evidence to substantiate that claim.

[Gordon]

But what drives my choice to make this statement?

All those elements that are the current you, Alan: wants, preferences and the situation you find yourself in. You have the ability to think but unless you just think random thoughts, which would make it very difficult to get through an average day, then your thoughts are influenced by precursors (some of which may operate subconsciously).

If you insist that it is entirely pre determined, it is not a free choice but an inevitable reaction, with no freedom involved.

Could be, especially since your responses here are so predictable it seems you may have little choice but to respond as you do (even if it feels to you that you are exercising choice).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All of which has bugger all to do with the point; that the bible condones slavery.

Where does it say that?
The matter was obviously discussed on whether to affect uprising against masters and rejected for the obvious reason that the Early Christian mission was the propogation of the Gospel rather than a futile and sporadic slave uprising which would presumably have ranged from violence to passive aggression.

The bible condones slavery is just a clever confection of the usual New Atheist revisionist flavour.

[Stranger]

Where does it say that?

See Slavery in the Bible and, in particular Slavery in the New Testament.

[floo]

Where does it say that?
The matter was obviously discussed on whether to affect uprising against masters and rejected for the obvious reason that the Early Christian mission was the propogation of the Gospel rather than a futile and sporadic slave uprising which would presumably have ranged from violence to passive aggression.

The bible condones slavery is just a clever confection of the usual New Atheist revisionist flavour.

Why did that guy Paul tell slaves to honour their masters?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why did that guy Paul tell slaves to honour their masters?

I've already spelt that out. So as not to upset the main mission of spreading the gospel and living and demonstrating the new life in Christ.

[BeRational]

Where does it say that?
The matter was obviously discussed on whether to affect uprising against masters and rejected for the obvious reason that the Early Christian mission was the propogation of the Gospel rather than a futile and sporadic slave uprising which would presumably have ranged from violence to passive aggression.

The bible condones slavery is just a clever confection of the usual New Atheist revisionist flavour.

The bible tells you who you can enslave and how you can treat them, and the fact the you can own them like money.

Do you not think the bible condones slavery?
Have you read the bible?
Do you want me to get the passages that condone it for you, as it is very simple to do?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The bible tells you who you can enslave and how you can treat them, and the fact the you can own them like money.

Do you not think the bible condones slavery?
Have you read the bible?
Do you want me to get the passages that condone it for you, as it is very simple to do?

Sorry, I was focussing on the New Testament.....My Bad.

[BeRational]

Sorry, I was focussing on the New Testament.....My Bad.

Yes very bad.

Does it say in the new testament that everything written in the old testament about owning slaves is now superceded, and the old testament was wrong?

If not, then yes, bad.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I know that any logical analysis from a secular point of view…

There’s no such thing as, “logical analysis from a secular point of view”; there’s just logic. Believing or not in gods, fairies or anything else doesn’t change the logic that leads to 2+2≠5.

…will come up with your conclusions…

Yes, that’s right – plain old, common-or-garden logic does lead to the conclusion that the arguments attempted so far least for God are wrong. That’s why the string of logical fallacies you parade here in an attempt to validate your beliefs to others consistently fail.   

…,but you do not take into account the God given power of the human soul to have the freedom to make conscious choices.

And speaking of logical fallacies, that’s another one (called "begging the question"). The issue here is whether or not there are any sound reasons to think there to be “God”, “soul” etc in the first place. You cannot just introduce them as if they’d been demonstrated already when in fact all you have is personal convictions and some very bad arguments to support them.   

Sorry, but no amount of convoluted, short sighted human logic can take away the reality that I have the freedom to make this statement.

It’s not convoluted at all – it’s actually very simple (even though you cannot or will not engage with it), and all logic is "human". If you think there’s a special, separate magic logic somewhere that produces different outcomes then you’d have to tell us what it is rather than just expect people to take your word for it.   

Wouldn’t it be more honest though just to say something like “OK, I have no sensible arguments to support me here but I really believe certain faith claims to be true anyway and I’d like it if other people agreed with me” and leave it at that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does it say in the new testament that everything written in the old testament about owning slaves is now superceded, and the old testament was wrong?

The epistles give no indication that Christian masters should not turn their slaves free. Roman slave owners would have paid no heed to the old testament or new and I believe the council of Jerusalem settled that several jewish laws were not encumbant on gentile converts.

As I said the new testament line such as it is is stay put and live as christians as an example to those in the community. There is certainly no injunction to have slaves.

[BeRational]

The epistles give no indication that Christian masters should not turn their slaves free. Roman slave owners would have paid no heed to the old testament or new and I believe the council of Jerusalem settled that several jewish laws were not encumbant on gentile converts.

As I said the new testament line such as it is is stay put and live as christians as an example to those in the community. There is certainly no injunction to have slaves.

The bible condones slavery.

Is this a good or bad thing in your view?

[floo]

I've already spelt that out. So as not to upset the main mission of spreading the gospel and living and demonstrating the new life in Christ.

That is a JOKE!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The bible condones slavery.

Overall I disagree. There is no injunction in the NT to have slaves and epistle evidence is that at the time it was thought sensible and expedient  for the Christian personnel at the time to stay in position. Who is to argue with that?