Your Views on Atheism

[Samber]

Originally Posted by Abbazaba

The problem with that is, is that according to the bible you would have to accept God into your heart and follow his word to get into Heaven. If they spent their life NOT caring about whether or not God was real, then they wouldn't get to Heaven after they died. Assuming there is a Heaven, of course.

So to them, contemplating such things is important.

Sure its important to think for yourself, i'm just saying having "PROVE IT" dissucions really have no point, since there is no answer, all it leads to are arguments and bad vibes. Sure you can decide for yourself, but trying to prove to others you're right is meaningless.

[Forever Atlas]

Originally Posted by Abbazaba

Why would God want to read my heart? It's a big red ball that pumps constantly. Unless there's writing on it that I don't know about, I don't see a point.

funny.... you know what it means. The figurative heart not literal... the seat of motivation, the deepest inner feelings... etc.

[Phoenix]

Since I hold Christian beliefs i'll just use the Bible and say, instead of trying to find whats wrong with the Bible has anyone who doesnt believe in it try to really study it and then not just scrutinize it, but try prove it right?

No, because that would not prove anything. You'll ignore 99 verses that seem to prove it wrong, and embrace the 1 verse that seems to prove it right. Trying to prove something with an already preconceived notion that it is right is the worst thing you can do when analyzing something, because that's bias.

Sure its important to think for yourself, i'm just saying having "PROVE IT" dissucions really have no point, since there is no answer, all it leads to are arguments and bad vibes. Sure you can decide for yourself, but trying to prove to others you're right is meaningless.

One, should, anyway try to base one's beliefs on reason, and not just what on the culture says.

funny.... you know what it means. The figurative heart not literal... the seat of motivation, the deepest inner feelings... etc.

It's kind of a jab against metaphors which try to be appeals to emotion. At least, that's how I see it.

[Forever Atlas]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

No, because that would not prove anything. You'll ignore 99 verses that seem to prove it wrong, and embrace the 1 verse that seems to prove it right. Trying to prove something with an already preconceived notion that it is right is the worst thing you can do when analyzing something, because that's bias.

and you see, just by you saying "NO" that goes to show you havent read that 99 or that 1 together, or the whole Bible for that matter... because you would see that EVERY scripture works in unity and how is trying to prove something correct bias? thats rather UNbias..... you look at both sides.

Now trying to prove something WRONG that is bias in every way because you already have set out in your mind that it is wrong. Giving no thought to anything in it being correct but just trying to back up your thoughts of it possibly being wrong.

Its just like going back to slavery days in the US, a lot of the slave owners just thought of the slaves as dirt. Didnt give them any second thought as to them being important. Just due to the fact that they were black and there was already this preconceived notion that all black people were under the whites. Now someone who took time to know a slave may come to appreciate that their notions were wrong. But how would they know unless they took the time to look at them and spend time with them?

They might say "oh" he did this ONE thing, or a few things that may not have been right and that makes him a BAD person. Give no further consideration to the person. No, that makes him human... an imperfect person like everyone else. But then if they took time to look at the person for who they are, they might see the good out weighs any bad and the reality and realization that the slave is not under them may have just shined through.

Some slave owners did take those steps to know their slaves and many (obviously not all) changed their ways and even set their slaves free because of just that. The others who didnt take the time just kept on in the same way.

Not just slavery, during segregated times and so on...

You understand what im trying to say?

[Hollow Bastion]

Originally Posted by Smooth

and you see, just by you saying "NO" that goes to show you havent read that 99 or that 1 together, or the whole Bible for that matter... because you would see that EVERY scripture works in unity and how is trying to prove something correct bias? thats rather UNbias..... you look at both sides.

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 24:16

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Originally Posted by Exodus 20:5

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them (idols), nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

Both from KJV. Regarding whether guilt transfers to the innocent.

[Forever Atlas]

Originally Posted by Hollow Bastion

Both from KJV. Regarding whether guilt transfers to the innocent.

your showing me those verses mean? I know exactly what they mean... but you are reading them for face value... and just those scriptures alone once again.... how about reading the surrounding verses or other scriptures in conjunction with those? then you will see its not what you think it is.

[Elegant Esthetics]

That would also mean that you have to follow all of the Bible's teaching instead of a select few, good luck finding a Christian that does that.

[Hollow Bastion]

If I am misunderstanding the verses, then please, explain it better.

Deuteronomy 24:16 and Eze 18:20 seem to be pretty self-explanatory, even given the context. It is equally so for Exodus 20:5. God is giving the 10 commandments. He's telling them no other gods before him. But then he goes on and states that the family of the one sinning will be condemned for multiple generations.

Nonetheless, the two offer opposing views. One keeps the sin on the one who committed it; the other transfers the sin to multiple generations.

[Forever Atlas]

Originally Posted by Hollow Bastion

If I am misunderstanding the verses, then please, explain it better.

Deuteronomy 24:16 and Eze 18:20 seem to be pretty self-explanatory, even given the context. It is equally so for Exodus 20:5. God is giving the 10 commandments. He's telling them no other gods before him. But then he goes on and states that the family of the one sinning will be condemned for multiple generations.

Nonetheless, the two offer opposing views. One keeps the sin on the one who committed it; the other transfers the sin to multiple generations.

First off... you never mentioned Ezekiel 18: 20... so idk what that has to do with this...

and as for Exodus 20:5 think about this first:

When a person does something, there are consequences, good or bad, depending on what they do. Correct? So now think about this, when the consequences are bad, most of the time if its serious enough, the consequences are felt years after. Not just by the one who did the wrong, but other around them and closely associated with them. So...

After reaching an age of responsibility, each individual is judged on the basis of his own conduct and attitude. But when the nation of Israel turned to idolatry, it suffered the consequences of this for generations thereafter. Even the faithful Israelites felt its effects in that the nation’s religious delinquency made staying on a course of integrity difficult for them.

Thats what that specific scripture was talking about.

[Hollow Bastion]

Ezekial 18:20 states practically the same thing as Deuteronomy 24:16: that the son is not responsible for the sins of the father, and vice versa; each is responsible for his/her own sin.

And that's nice and all, but it still contradicts with two verses I mentioned above. Multiple generations of innocents are condemned for the faults of a guilty party. I think you failed to notice that the verse I referenced to is only when the commandments are presented, not when they are broken.

Also, if you read the verse right after, it states: "And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

Which I certainly would believe means those who follow the commandments will receive God's mercy. Unless of course your father/ancestor was an idolater, then you're just condemned for your father's sin.

[Forever Atlas]

Originally Posted by Hollow Bastion

Ezekial 18:20 states practically the same thing as Deuteronomy 24:16: that the son is not responsible for the sins of the father, and vice versa; each is responsible for his/her own sin.

And that's nice and all, but it still contradicts with two verses I mentioned above. Multiple generations of innocents are condemned for the faults of a guilty party. I think you failed to notice that the verse I referenced to is only when the commandments are presented, not when they are broken.

Also, if you read the verse right after, it states: "And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

Which I certainly would believe means those who follow the commandments will receive God's mercy. Unless of course your father/ancestor was an idolater, then you're just condemned for your father's sin.

it doesnt contradict anything. Just re-read what i said and think about it for a moment.


Now let me illustrate: September 11, 2001

We all know that date. Now that was almost seven years ago. Thousands of people lost their lives on that day because of the actions of a few extremeists. Now not only did those who died that day suffer, but all the way to today, people are still suffering health problems, mental and emotional problems, pain and heartache still lives in the hearts of the family of those who lost loved ones in the buildings, also there are buildings that have parts that were not fit for people to be in... the effects could go on and on.

So what would you say in this situation?

In the scripture that you are trying to contradict you have to learn to look beyond the english translation and just the one verse you are looking at. A book always has a start middle and end. If you miss one part the others might make no sense and then you'll be lost or left to assume things. Its no different with the BIble.

That scripture says yes that God would judge the people who DEDICATED their LIVES to him WILLINGLY. He would judge those. Now he didnt bring anything upon people those who were faithful. Any judgement on people was because of their own actions. However because of the actions of those who lived before them, there were still after effects of the sins of the past people. Just like there is still ground zero in New York because of those few extremists.

Now if a father commits a crime, he'll be punnished, if the son does too, then he'll also be punnished, if the father does, and the son doesnt, then the son would not be punished. HOWEVER the son would feel the effects due to the father's actions. The whole family would no doubt feel the effects. It doesnt mean that the police are punishing the family too or arresting the family.. no its just the effects of another persons actions.

Those scriptures dont contradict. Like i said before, you take two different things and just match them up solely because you want to try disprove what the Bible says. You dont look at the WHOLE book. Otherwise you'd see that there was nothing wrong with what was said, nothing is contradicted.

[Phoenix]

"In psychology and logic, rationalization is the process of constructing a logical justification for a belief, decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process. It is a defense mechanism in which unacceptable behaviors or feelings are explained in a rational or logical manner; this avoids the true explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.[1][2]"

[Hollow Bastion]

Not a very good analogy. "Visiting the iniquity [...] unto the third and fourth generation" still sounds like passing judgement on those innocent of the initial crime.

For something better, how about this version of the verse:

You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons, upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation, in the case of those who hate me;

or this one

Don't bow down and worship idols. I am the LORD your God, and I demand all your love. If you reject me, I will punish your families for three or four generations.

(these are the only two I could find that deviated from the KJV)


Although, if you'd really like, I could reference to other verses where this same verse is repeated, or ones where an innocent is charged for the sin of a guilty party.

[Dogenzaka]

As Smooth described, God forgives sin, but sin still leaves consequences. Some woman smokes crack and drinks while she's pregnant, and her son is going to pay the consequences for that. Parents don't discipline their kid, and their kid will turn out to be a brat. Have pre-marital sex, and it could ruin relationships, give STDs, teenage pregnancy, etc.

Also, why only Old Testament links? Or does the fact that the Old Testament was the old way to deal with sin and other than the Commandments laid down by the Father, most of the ways people and God dealt with sin are irrelevant now due to the New Covenant laid down by the death of Jesus Christ mean nothing?

[Phoenix]

As Smooth described, God forgives sin, but sin still leaves consequences. Some woman smokes crack and drinks while she's pregnant, and her son is going to pay the consequences for that. Parents don't discipline their kid, and their kid will turn out to be a brat. Have pre-marital sex, and it could ruin relationships, give STDs, teenage pregnancy, etc.

Except, you know, for the latest verses he posted, such as:

"Don't bow down and worship idols. I am the LORD your God, and I demand all your love. If you reject me, I will punish your families for three or four generations."

What part of this verse even hints at your interpretation?

Also, why only Old Testament links? Or does the fact that the Old Testament was the old way to deal with sin and other than the Commandments laid down by the Father, most of the ways people and God dealt with sin are irrelevant now due to the New Covenant laid down by the death of Jesus Christ mean nothing?

The good old "OT doesn't count" argument. Never gets old. The point was to show that 2 verses can indeed contradict each other, not that this is how the Father deals with sin today.

Smooth said:

"and you see, just by you saying "NO" that goes to show you havent read that 99 or that 1 together, or the whole Bible for that matter... because you would see that EVERY scripture works in unity and how is trying to prove something correct bias? thats rather UNbias..... you look at both sides."

HB posted 2 conflicting verses to see how would Smooth explain the contradiction, since Smooth claims that those 2 verses make sense in unity.

Finally, I forgot to reply to Smooth myself =/

and you see, just by you saying "NO" that goes to show you havent read that 99 or that 1 together, or the whole Bible for that matter... because you would see that EVERY scripture works in unity and how is trying to prove something correct bias? thats rather UNbias..... you look at both sides.

Way to disregard the other side, Smooth. If I find something in the Bible that doesn't quite fit, I must be reading it wrong?

Now trying to prove something WRONG that is bias in every way because you already have set out in your mind that it is wrong. Giving no thought to anything in it being correct but just trying to back up your thoughts of it possibly being wrong.

Wait, what? Incorrect. If you set out to prove something wrong, and utterly fail at it, it gains credibility.

I make an experiment to prove gravity wrong. To better my chances, I will throw 10,000 rocks from the Empire State building. If even one rock doesn't fall, I just dealt gravity a heavy blow. It doesn't matter if 9,999 rocks fall (just like it doesn't matter if there seem to be 9,999 that are right), if even one rock (or verse) doesn't fit the criteria, you have problems.

Or, I could do what you did, and say "Well, gravity must've gotten tired on that last rock. You're not interpreting gravity right."

Its just like going back to slavery days in the US, a lot of the slave owners just thought of the slaves as dirt. Didnt give them any second thought as to them being important. Just due to the fact that they were black and there was already this preconceived notion that all black people were under the whites. Now someone who took time to know a slave may come to appreciate that their notions were wrong. But how would they know unless they took the time to look at them and spend time with them?

Except, you know, I've read the Bible?

They might say "oh" he did this ONE thing, or a few things that may not have been right and that makes him a BAD person. Give no further consideration to the person. No, that makes him human... an imperfect person like everyone else. But then if they took time to look at the person for who they are, they might see the good out weighs any bad and the reality and realization that the slave is not under them may have just shined through.

Some slave owners did take those steps to know their slaves and many (obviously not all) changed their ways and even set their slaves free because of just that. The others who didnt take the time just kept on in the same way.

Not just slavery, during segregated times and so on...

You understand what im trying to say?

Are you seriously comparing an imperfect human being to the Bible? I cannot even to begin to list the many ways where the analogy completely fails to illustrate your point.

Regardless, you're accusing me of not understanding the Bible. Aside from not sharing your pov, what makes you believe that?