Originally posted by josephwAre you saying that there are things that happen in the universe that do not have god as an ultimate cause? So there is causal agent that is independent from god?
Yes, something went wrong. But it wasn't God's doing.
I'm curious. You're an atheist. You reject the bible story as just fiction. Why do you even argue about it? What's more, why do I argue about it if I know we'll get nowhere? This is nuts!
Yes, I reject the bible stories as fiction. The reason I argue about them is because evangelical christians think I should believe them as fact, and that their beliefs deserve greater legal recognition than anyone else's. They must be battled and defeated.
Originally posted by rwingettTo your battle stations soldier!! ðŸ˜
Are you saying that there are things that happen in the universe that do not have god as an ultimate cause? So there is causal agent that is independent from god?
Yes, I reject the bible stories as fiction. The reason I argue about them is because evangelical christians think I should believe them as fact, and that their beliefs deserve greater legal recognition than anyone else's. They must be battled and defeated.
Originally posted by josephwThere are about 20 passages in the bible that say, very clearly, that it was god who hardened Pharaoh's heart. It was god who caused Pharaoh to act the way he did. It's quite clear that god didn't want Pharaoh to let the Israelites go peacefully. He caused Pharaoh to oppose him so he would have an excuse to display his might. As Dawkins observed, it's the type of action more typical of a spiteful bully than an almighty god.
Within the context, God hardened an already hard heart.
Originally posted by rwingettPerhaps displaying his might had a greater purpose than what we are able to reason? God has his purposes even though we are not always privy to them.
There are about 20 passages in the bible that say, very clearly, that it was god who hardened Pharaoh's heart. It was god who caused Pharaoh to act the way he did. It's quite clear that god didn't want Pharaoh to let the Israelites go peacefully. He caused Pharaoh to oppose him so he would have an excuse to display his might. As Dawkins observed, it's the type of action more typical of a spiteful bully than an almighty god.
Another possibility is that it was a type of judgement over the Egyptian empire for holding the Israelites captive for some 500 years the whole time in which they were subjected to bruttle slave labor. God forbid he should judge them for that.
Originally posted by telerionHonestly? No. 😛
Originally posted by whodey
[b]Perhaps displaying his might had a greater purpose than what we are able to reason? God has his purposes even though we are not always privy to them.
That was sooner than I had expected to be honest. Now do you guys see why I haven't been around for while?[/b]
Originally posted by telerionYes, same here. I have missed you as well. :'(
In the old days I would have given a rec to the first poster who can explain it to you. Good to hear from you again. 🙂
As far as an explanation goes, if I am able to figure it out on my own will you req me?
Originally posted by whodeyPerhaps? Are you guessing? Are you just making it up as you go along? Perhaps he really is a spiteful bully who has no greater purpose.
Perhaps displaying his might had a greater purpose than what we are able to reason? God has his purposes even though we are not always privy to them.
Another possibility is that it was a type of judgement over the Egyptian empire for holding the Israelites captive for some 500 years the whole time in which they were subjected to bruttle slave labor. God forbid he should judge them for that.
It's also quite clear that the bible endorses slavery, regardless of whether it was "bruttle" or not.
Originally posted by rwingettWell then, there is slavery and then there is slavery. For example, perhaps I am a slave to my job? The Bible does permit slavery but not in the way it was imposed in Eygpt. Mosaic slavery was simply a way for those how had not means to survive. Slaves had rights and slaves were allowed to go free after so many years of service. The Mosaic law simply did not entertain any type of wealth distribution that was not worked for. However, those who had nothing always had a means through which to live even if it ment working for food/shelter. Perhaps all that my job affords me is being able to pay the rent and feed myself? If so, am I a slave?
It's also quite clear that the bible endorses slavery, regardless of whether it was "bruttle" or not.[/b]
Personally, I have no problem with Richard Dawkins. He is a bright, engaging fellow, who doesn't seem to take himself too seriously. I don't sense any high-mindedness in his rhetoric, as he seems to be a genuine skeptic (i.e. an atheist without the emotional baggage), which gives him a certain level-headedness his more spiteful and hateful brethren lack tackling the subject of God. Of course, there is nothing original in his assertions, but they are timely.
For myself, I don't see what the big deal is. His book is essentially an embellishment of what a Christian already knows, that "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1). Richard Dawkins, of course, cannot understand why people believe because he has never tasted the assurances of faith, and so he calls faith the only thing he can, a delusion, and sets about explaining it away as best he can. All of which is no surprise.
I respect Dawkin's intelligence and scholarship, and I would only fault him if I thought his bold assertions weren't arrived at in complete ignorance of the assurance which genuine faith in God provides. Without being familiar with the presence of God filling one's spirit, which believers enjoy, Dawkins could not be expected to arrive at any other conclusion than what he has.
"Whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him" (Heb. 11:6).
Originally posted by rwingettIs this the same bully who died for me on the cross? If so, then I would have to conclude a firm NO!!!
[b]Perhaps? Are you guessing? Are you just making it up as you go along? Perhaps he really is a spiteful bully who has no greater purpose.
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you think it's okay, you have no morals.
We are talking about God, correct? The same God if you take
scripture as is, setup the universe which includes all the laws of
nature and physics as well. All will die, the full human race is
under bondage of sin and death and no one however young is
immune to death, be they 1 hour or 80 years old, none of us is
promised tomorrow you are acting as if G ...[text shortened]... as given us life in the first
place let alone setup the life expectancy of all life too.
Kelly