I'll add to this off-topic part of the discussion that I, too, have little family left, and even less friends. So, it's unanimous. Maybe it's because we are on a dating site, debating philosophy and religion! Just kidding.
FWIW-I respect, and like, both of you, and wish you both the best. I suppose we could be cyber-friends, at least.

Ah, so the purpose of this life is to suffer for God. Endure all the pain and anguish, while still loving and obeying this cosmic-level deadbeat dad.
And you call that "love?" Once again, you describe an unloving god as well as I can.

No offense, but it is my thought that what you perceive of as God's presence is merely a case of your mind telling you what you want to hear. But, let's just say you're right. If you really have felt God's presence, then you at least have some reason for believing what you believe. But, what about all the people like me, who sincerely worshiped this god for decades, yet never felt anything? What about all the people out there who suffer, day after day, crying out to this god, who never feel anything...or hear anything...or receive any relief. What makes you, and some of the other people that I've debated this topic with who make similar claims of feeling God's presence or hearing him speak to them, so special? Why do you guys get "Damscus road" stuff, and the rest of us don't? In addition to the fact that there is an unstated conceit contained in these claims in many cases (i.e. "Well, I guess I'm just more holy than you are. That's why God helped me find my car keys, while at the same time letting your wife die of cancer." I'm not accusing you of that. You haven't acted that way thus far. But I have actually witnessed exchanges very similar to my example.), it is also quite unfair for an omnipresent god, who supposedly loves his children, to make his presence felt by some and not by others.

You say you "choose" to follow God, and that if he made a grand appearance, that would change; that we would have to. I'm sorry, but isn't that what most Christians believe is going to happen at some point anyway? If so...if that is the ultimate solution that God is going to employ at some point...why wait?! If it's the thing to do, then do it already! End the needless fighting and suffering.

That said, I wasn't thinking of that kind of action on his part anyway. Going back to my illustration of the man driving the car while his children fight in the back seat-We would expect this man to do something before his children kill each other, right? However, we would NOT expect him to pull over and kill the children who are incorrect about what he instructed them to do, while leaving alive the one(s) who are correct. No, what we would expect him to do is to open his damn mouth and tell the children who is correct, thus ending the argument by removing the reason for the argument. That's what I mean that God could do; open his mouth and state for the record who is right. Then, it would still be up to all of us to decide if we want to toe his line or not. But, at least we would all know for certain, without needing to have it explained to us by middlemen who all say something different, where his line is.

I reject your assertion anyway. For one thing, according to the Bible, Israel received Yahweh's commands straight from the horse's mouth, or at least from one of his angels, yet they still chose whether or not they wanted to obey him. So, just because he overcomes his shyness and speaks up, that doesn't mean that we no longer have a choice.

Of course, the argument can be made that none of us really has a choice anyway since, as Lazarus said, our choices are:

1.Serve God.
2. Don't serve God. Get obliterated. Or burn in Hell. (Depending on which middleman who are speaking to.)

Finally, consider this:The angels are heavenly beings, superior to we lowly humans in every way. Right?
Well, according to the Bible, vast numbers of them (Revelation seems to be saying that it was a third of them, as you no doubt know.) rebelled against God. This, despite the fact that they never had to suffer with infirmities, starvation, illness, or any number of things that go hand in hand with being human. Furthermore, they never had to suffer any of those things while at the same time having to wonder whether or not God even exists! They knew full well of his existence, having been in his presence. They also knew what he was like better than any of us ever can. They knew whether or not he always keeps his promises, for instance.
And, yet...many, many of them rebelled.

So, I maintain that it is unfair, and unloving, for God to demand that we lesser beings, who have so much less to go on than his angelic sons did, to credulously accept the muddled, boring, convoluted, and inconsistent writings of ancient primitives as HIS WORD; and follow whichever version of its story we may have been taught, by whichever middleman that taught it to us, unquestioningly.

That said, I wasn't thinking of that kind of action on his part anyway. Going back to my illustration of the man driving the car while his children fight in the back seat-We would expect this man to do something before his children kill each other, right? However, we would NOT expect him to pull over and kill the children who are incorrect about what he instructed them to do, while leaving alive the one(s) who are correct. No, what we would expect him to do is to open his damn mouth and tell the children who is correct, thus ending the argument by removing the reason for the argument. That's what I mean that God could do; open his mouth and state for the record who is right. Then, it would still be up to all of us to decide if we want to toe his line or not. But, at least we would all know for certain, without needing to have it explained to us by middlemen who all say something different, where his line is

Those questions miss the point, but I will nevertheless answer them with a question of my own: How much less merit, then, should extraordinary claims made two thousand years ago have?

Those questions miss the point, but I will nevertheless answer them with a question of my own: How much less merit, then, should extraordinary claims made two thousand years ago have?

Again as I stated, I am the OP so if I go out of bounds a little on my own discussion, I won't be offended, trust me.

You also failed to address any other part of the post. I did make an assumption that you were a raised christian since the people that stick that hard to their religion and ignore any form of logic are often the ones brainwashed from a young age, so it's at their core and a bit harder to look away from. The other types usually being the ones that cling to religion because it "saved" them from a worse lifestyle such as alcohol or drug abuse. Then there's those that cling to it because they cannot find love in their life or purpose and therefore they turn to one that was invented by man 2000 years ago.

Apologies if I'm focusing this discussion too much on you but the participants on this convo have grown slim so I'm simply using you as an example for all those that believe without proof, it's not personal.

You have your god along with whatever other friends and family that you have accumulated. I have random forum threads and not much else. I was never that close to my family and pretty much no friends. I know, off-topic, just opening a window to me and why I may be so cynical and not believe in a god so easily as you.

You have your god along with whatever other friends and family that you have accumulated. I have random forum threads and not much else. I was never that close to my family and pretty much no friends. I know, off-topic, just opening a window to me and why I may be so cynical and not believe in a god so easily as you.

Well, I already have been, throughout this debate. But, I will continue to do so, for as long as I have the time.
And, yes, I agree that there is no evidence that is 100% proof of anything. We established that already. That said, most of us have fairly equivalent standards for quantifying the relative strength or weakness of evidence, as long as we have no bias for or against said evidence.
Which, again, was my point with the Ra illustration.

For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual.

However, if he also said that the Lord Jesus had appeared to him and empowered him to perform this feat in order to prove to him that his atheist philosophy was wrong, I daresay that, while you would still be highly skeptical of his claim, your skepticism would be slightly less than before, because of your personal belief that Jesus can do pretty much anything. So, your bias would affect how you would weigh his evidence, even if only slightly in this case.

For instance, if Lazarus showed up on this forum claiming he could fly, I think that it's safe to assume that you, the Christian, and I, the atheist, would both require some really strong evidence, like seeing him perform the feat in person with our own eyes, before we would accept his assertion as being factual.

You can't disprove the non-existence of something, that's an impossibility by definition since nothing 'exists' until we discover it. But does that mean we should believe every wild-eyed story that's told to us? God exists in the same category as pixies, fairy godmothers, magic and many other fairy tales that exist only in the minds of people. You can't argue his existence based on lacking evidence of non-existence, otherwise you break the very rules that we build our reality upon.

"That would totally be your choice, again not here to change your perspective."
You've just put your god in the same basket as the flying spaghetti monster, lol. So you'd just believe anything you're told so long as the story is old enough not to be immediately disproved.

If someone hadn't filled your head with wild stories as a kid, you would have dismissed feeling 'his presence' as something logically explainable like emotions or a change in the weather.

So.... Him actually existing instead of just being a figment of people's overactive imaginations would somehow defeat the purpose? A god of convenience then, he only exists if you believe he does? Kinda like I'm only invisible if you don't look at me and believe I am? Lol... Funny to add to all of that, people invented a religion in recent years in which they worship a flying spaghetti monster (no lies, google it). So should we believe that wholeheartedly in another 2000 years because any evidence of it's falsehood may have been lost to time by then?

Also, given a scenario(the one in your head) in which god does exist,
he whips you like his own personal slave and you oblige?
I'd quote the phrase, it's better to die free then to live as a slave but like I said he doesn't give you much choice, follow me or burn in the fires of hell for eternity. Anyone that defied that either didn't know what they were getting into or were just being dramatic and likely regretted it later.

Also not really fair is it, if we don't believe in god and follow his ways despite him giving us NOTHING solid from which to believe in, he sends us off to burn in the fires of hell for eternity. Like "Guess what?!?! I'm real!! LOVE YOU!! Buh bye!". Dick...

A god of convenience then, he only exists if you believe he does?

So should we believe that wholeheartedly in another 2000 years because any evidence of it's falsehood may have been lost to time by then?

Also, given a scenario(the one in your head) in which god does exist,
he whips you like his own personal slave and you oblige?

giving us NOTHING solid

There it is, right there. Well said, Lazarus.

If he exists, he is like a man driving a car while his children fight with each other in the back seat over something he instructed them to do. And, he continues driving along obliviously as his children's arguing turns violent and they kill each other. But, he says nothing the whole time.

Think of all the arguing and violence in the world that stems from arguments over who's version of Skydaddy is the correct one. Not just between differing religions, but between different sects of the same religion. (Catholics and Protestants, anyone?) Meanwhile, the one person in all the universe who could end it sits on his cloud and remains strangely silent.

Oh well. Perhaps he is preoccupied with something. Like whittling. Or playing Grand Theft Cherub on his GodBox. :P

Jesus, possibly. The Greek sentence structure allows for that reading. I realize that it's difficult for you to consider that, as it doesn't put God in a very good light, but don't blame me; I didn't write the passage. Let alone write it in an ambiguous way that could be interpreted in this fashion.



I agree. Please note that I also said "or, at least, allow."



The fact that you can ask this question demonstrates what I said earlier about how religion skews ones perception. How can an All-Powerful, All-Loving entity do nothing to end the suffering of sick and diseased people?
And, how can you defend said entity?



We'll see. (No pun intended.) But, why wait? He could cure blindness with but a thought, right? It's not loving to withhold relief from his children, that he supposedly loves, when it would be so easy for him to provide it.



That's assuming, of course, we actually have the opportunity to see eternity. That's another extraordinary claim. Have you any extraordinary evidence to support it?



OMG! Did you really just type that?! That's almost as bad as claiming that David's son was better off dying as an infant.

The fact that you can ask this question demonstrates what I said earlier about how religion skews ones perception. How can an All-Powerful, All-Loving entity do nothing to end the suffering of sick and diseased people?
And, how can you defend said entity?

Well, Lazarus, it just so happens that the Bible does refer to unicorns and dragons!

Job 39:9-12

"9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? 10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?"

Psalm 29:6

"6 He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn."

Isaiah 34:7

"7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."

Isaiah 27:1

"27 In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea."

And, there are actually more verses that mention dragons, but I didn't feel like listing them all.

Oh, here's a bonus mythological creature mentioned in the Bible for you:

Isaiah 13:21

"21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."

Cowboy will probably now tell me that this was just symbolic language, or a translation issue and that the unicorns mentioned weren't really unicorns, but possibly rhinos, or wild oxen, as many apologists do. But I couldn't resist mentioning these passages when I saw your post. Oh, and I should mention that, regardless of how some apologists want to explain away these passages, there are some fundamentalists who defend some of these passages as actually being legit, as translated.

People are flawed, even the bible says it. We lie, we make stuff up. All that "proof" is words in a book made by man. Why believe in god and not in unicorns, dragons and other such fairy tales? I think that you believe in him not because the stories make sense or even because you see them as logically plausible but because it is a story of an all powerful being that loves you and it gives your life a false sense of purpose and you fear that without that, you would have nothing. Are you able to reflect upon that and still tell me that there's no way I'm right?

Lol.. Ya we don't have definitive answers on the creation of the planet but the ones we do have make more logical sense than some sentient all powerful being snapped his fingers and -bam- earth! I get that I'm simplifying over how it explains in the bible but seven days for a single being to make a planet and everything on it is pretty much '-bam-'. But at least science tries to explain things via logical means. It doesn't just look at a 2000 year old book that doesn't even have a shred of solid proof/evidence that man didn't just make the whole thing up. Yes it has some truths in it but the greatest lies invented were born of truth.

If god wanted our faith and wanted us to believe, in this, the information age, he would give us something solid, something in the here and now. Not just expect us to believe the ancient writings of people from an age with little to nothing for entertainment.

I am keeping the verses in context. The verses you just quoted, which open the chapter in question, warn against specific acts that would bring defilement, or uncleanness, upon the priests, such as touching a dead body. (As mentioned in verse 1.)The disabled people in question were already disabled, so these warnings to avoid doing anything that would cause defilement didn't apply to their already present disabilities.

These verses also do not state that the disabled people who were here prohibited from priestly duties were defiled, and that that was why they were prohibited. It was all about appearances.

For example, allow me to quote from the Jamieson-Faust-Brown Commentary:

"As visible things exert a strong influence on the minds of men, any physical infirmity or malformation of body in the ministers of religion, which disturbs the associations or excites ridicule, tends to detract from the weight and authority of the sacred office. Priests laboring under any personal defect were not allowed to officiate in the public service; they might be employed in some inferior duties about the sanctuary but could not perform any sacred office."

Yes, I knew that. But, in keeping with the theme of the thread, I don't think it was all that loving for God to cause, or at least allow, a man to suffer with blindness from birth, just so he could send Jesus down here and cure the guy for his own exaltation.

To be fair I am the OP so if I de-rail a bit, that doesn't exactly defeat the purpose of the thread. I never started the thread with a belief that there actually was a god. The point overall is that how can people believe that there actually is a god never-mind that he's a loving one. I mean there's no proof of existence and even less proof of his alleged love and if he doesn't exist he cannot love so there is that to think about as well.
Also this thread is over 3 years old, frankly I'm surprised we're in the same realm of conversation as the OP at this point.

So, the first covenant "prophesied it's ending" and the coming of a new? Apparently it realized that it was a barbaric and primitive covenant unworthy of an All-Wise God.

I can't see how you can say that it wasn't a change, though, for it obviously was. A big change. Heck,the very fact that the New Covenant is called the NEW Covenant makes it pretty clear that it is distinct from the old one. For instance, look at how Jeremiah refers to it:

Jeremiah 31:31-34

"31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Yahweh specifically mentions one change right there; that his laws would now be inscribed in hearts, instead of on stone.

Then there was the big issue over a little tissue; circumcision.

Of course, right after you said that it wasn't a change, you said that God used two different covenants, which sure sounds to me like there was a change.

By the way, I understand that you can't really know why Yahweh would choose to employ a defective system for over a thousand years, then initiate its new and improved replacement, instead of initiating the better system right off the bat. I just ask the question to inspire thought. The point is that an All-Knowing and All-Wise God shouldn't do that. I give him more credit than that.



It sure looks to me like you did:



Okay. I agree that it wasn't stated that this applied to all deformities for all time. And, I will take this opportunity to modify something I said earlier. I said that Jesus stated that deformities were the result of sin. In truth, he didn't state it outright in the instance I had in mind; he implied it.

However, in another instance, his disciples directly stated it, and he corrected them. Ironically enough, his statement in that instance provides yet another example of God not being a loving god!

John 9:1-3

"1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

Thanks Yahweh! You're a real pal.You couldn't think of some other way to demonstrate your greatness?



Okay. Well, it is God's judgement that I am criticizing.



I quoted Romans 3:23 merely to demonstrate that, according to "God's Word," everyone sins. And, presumably, everyone always had. Including the aforementioned beautiful priests.
But, if you want OT verses that also say that everyone sins, here you go:

1 Kings 8:46

"46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;"

Ecclesiastes 7:20

"20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

So, again, taking the story at face-value, even the Yahweh-approved studly priests were sinners. Therefore, it was unloving of God to discriminate against the disabled sinners.

John 9:1-3

"1 And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

Thanks Yahweh! You're a real pal.You couldn't think of some other way to demonstrate your greatness?

I quoted Romans 3:23 merely to demonstrate that, according to "God's Word," everyone sins. And, presumably, everyone always had. Including the aforementioned beautiful priests.
But, if you want OT verses that also say that everyone sins, here you go:

1 Kings 8:46

"46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;"

Ecclesiastes 7:20

"20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not."

So, again, taking the story at face-value, even the Yahweh-approved studly priests were sinners. Therefore, it was unloving of God to discriminate against the disabled sinners.

All right, then. I'll take your word for it. I will now explain.
In your previous post, you quoted part of one of my statements where I said:
"Again, if I was trying to sell you on worshiping Ra..." and you replied, "Who's "selling" anything? We're here for the discussions at hand. Not trying to convert you or make you believe my friend. Just expressing details/information(s) on the discussion at hand."

I suppose it's my fault for wording it that way, but that wasn't even the point. I know that you're not trying to convert me, any more than I'm trying to "unconvert" you. We are just having a discussion. I realize that.
Allow me to rephrase the Ra illustration, and hopefully the point will now be clear:

If we were debating the historical accuracy of the stories about Ra, and I was arguing in favor of accepting these stories as being factual based on flimsy evidence, spin, and special pleading like you have at times throughout our discussion thus far, you would call me on it. You would examine the evidence that I put forward with logic and common sense, because you wouldn't be biased in favor of the Ra stories. Quite the opposite, actually. And, this would be true regardless of which deity (Other than Jesus and Yahweh, of course.) we were discussing. I just picked Ra at random.

While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is. That's what I've been demonstrating.

While I am not trying to talk you out of your belief, I would hope that at some point you would at least realize how weak the evidence you have offered throughout this debate really is

Ya and even the English version is so ancient that it sounds partially foreign to modern day English speakers. It may have even been the same for the original languages at this point. So not only are they having to translate from other languages into English but from a version of those languages that's 2000 years old.

On a side note, I love how CowboyGH stopped responding to my posts altogether. Religious people tend to do that when you back them into a corner, they will get into a hyper-defensive state and revert to an 'I'm right and you're wrong' mentality. He's only continuing the arguement with you because you're playing into his realm of expertise with the bible quotes, he could go back and forth with you all day with that stuff.

On a side note, I love how CowboyGH stopped responding to my posts altogether. Religious people tend to do that when you back them into a corner, they will get into a hyper-defensive state and revert to an 'I'm right and you're wrong' mentality. He's only continuing the arguement with you because you're playing into his realm of expertise with the bible quotes, he could go back and forth with you all day with that stuff.

Hmm, I wonder if your religion will ever revamp the bible with modern day English? At least modern day grammar. I have a decent vocab and above average grammar and the bulk of the bible quotes I see look like pure gibberish. I mean apart from lacking meaning in the first place because they come from an age old children's storybook the grammar is terrible and many of the words used have not been spoken in common tongue for as long as I've been around and I'm 36.

And congrats for cleaning the crap out of your eyes and joining us in the real world, lol... But I'm still not sure why people are using quotes from the bible to argue against religion/god. I mean the only thing I have to say at this point is, the bible is BS and there is no other piece of 'evidence' that can be logically and conclusively linked to the existence of a higher being. God is just another word for things that we have yet to explain.

Just a few hundred years ago people still thought the earth was flat, we are still an ignorant race of people. We only deem ourselves as intellectuals because we're the smartest that we know of in existence. Humans have been around in our current form for approx. 200,000 years and only 6000 years ago civilization as we know it began so 97% of the existence of our race has been wasted.

We finally get smart and start using nuclear bombs to wipe each other out, this is what we choose to do with our intellect. There's no way an all powerful being made us unless it was to laugh at how incredibly stupid we are. Given a few hundred more years we might start to resemble something that could be loosely compared to intelligent but that's only if we don't kill each other off first or blow through our natural resources (due to our exponential reproduction) before we can advance enough to venture into deep space.