Calvinism and Arminianism remix

But Christians believe that god created a paradise where humans were only good and apparently vegetarian. This was his intended creation, not the one we see today. Evil apparently came from outside - also a creation of the Christian god. God it appears, didn't share your view that good can't exist without evil, but he's not godly enough to prevent it. We're back to the puny god again. The above also applies to disease and disaster - they weren't necessary in Eden. But also what has entropy got to do with disease? Did god really have to create - or allow to be created - polio, anthrax, AIDS, ebola? It makes no sense within a belief system of a loving god. Ditto above. But also before we understood how the natural world uses competition to create species, Christians believed that they were put here intact. Species were created and were immutable, competition for life was not a necessary force to drive evolution it was a deliberate act of malicious creation, yet they still believed as you do. They just created equally irrational apologetics for it.As with each of these, the question stands - is this the best a god can do? The Christian god that created Adam and Eve did not believe in, or need, the wolf. He wanted heaven on earth. Apparently he failed and his creation has stayed broken for several billion years and can't be fixed. It's a failed experiment. Not much of a god.

Such a mature and selfless attitude! You sound like a four-year-old who must have his marshmallow NOW rather than waiting for something better. Ditto. A four-year-old doesn't care about personal growth, either.

Blaming God does nobody any good. The evidence shows that the only controllable variable that we as humanity has is our own personal responsibility and duty towards our present and future quality of life.There are several solutions for removing the blame placed on God.we can:

believe that the evidence shows He/She does not exist. Yet that (the responsibility must be ours. We become the decisions that we make---either collectively or individually. )

​

Believe that God exists yet that the responsibility must be ours. We become the decisions that we make---either collectively or individually.

​

In other words, belief or lack of belief is irrelevant regarding the responsibility that humanity has to address AIDS, Ebola, Tsunamis, Terrorist marches, Group Behavior, and isolated global actions that harm or kill others.

​

Perhaps, Tangle...this is the point you want religious folks to see.

​

Finally--- Although I do not see God as a hypothetical. I am now saying that my beliefs do not ultimately matter in regards to my responsibilities as a global citizen. I can and do pray...and I can and do try to use logic, reason, and reality-based thinking when possible.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

You have to understand ringo. He claims to be an atheist and is a contrarian in regards to most arguments, but he would prefer that even if God does exist that he (ringo) simply be left alone and allowed to voice his free willed beliefs and philosophies.

Wahey, by George he's got it!Regardless of god/s what we have to do is be responsible for ourselves and others and set up the institutions that can improve our lives - health, education, criminal justice, welfare, industry, environment etc etc.Meanwhile, it would help if we did away with all the spurious activity that wastes time and energy and creates diferences bewteen people so that they can fight about them. Just think how much more we could do with all than time and money absorbed by our religious institutions that could actually be doing something useful. Maybe you'll get round to noticing that that the praying bit is unnecessary too.

Weasel words. As I said, nothing needs to be added to mindless processes. Stars going supernova are mindless processes. But we do understand the processes of chemistry. We just don't know the exact details of how they fit together - yet. We didn't know how electricity worked until we did. There's no reason to think we won't figure out how abiogenesis works. We didn't need intelligent design to figure out electricity and we don't need intelligent design to figure out abiogenesis. We're not talking about your personal opinion of what's "more rational". We're talking about which explanation is simpler a la Occam. The explanation that doesn't rest on a giant question mark is obviously simpler.

Because they're not in the Bible. If they were, you could point them out instead of just being shocked. Nope. I'd start by saying that "in the beginning was the word" has nothing to do with Jesus.

Is that an attempt at sarcasm? We're not talking about delayed gratification here. We're talking about the needs of the present versus some hypothetical fictitious wishy-washy weasely future benefit.

Ok, I'll admit that it is harder to prove that the talking snake is satan...so I won't attempt to literalize that metaphor. What else could "in the beginning" mean? The Word was with God...the Word was God, He was with God in the beginning.... He Who? Additionally, we have these references:

John 1:14
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

​

John 17:5
"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

​

Colossians 1:17
He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

​

1 John 1:1
What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life--

​

Granted those are all from the revisionist author---so many critics denounce the attempt..(Not I, though)

​

Hebrews 1:10 And, You, Lord, in the beginning have laid the foundation of the

Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

​

Critics challenge the idea of the virgin birth, but Matthew makes it clear:

Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son,

​

Why do you insist on reinterpreting an entire group of books? Humans are no wiser today in matters of philosophy than they ever were. In the final analysis, it all boils down to belief, anyway. We have no DNA.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

As an atheist you are pretty clear about what Christians believe. As NN says you sound like Faith. You are arguing against the fundamentalist view of Scripture. The majority of Christians probably don't even think about that, let alone believe it. We know that mankind has the knowledge of good and evil and is able to make and act on moral choices. It seems that any intelligence that can bring about the existence that we know today, even if imperfect is anything but puny. In our entropic world the body is going to break down and be subject to disease. Once again you argue against the fundamentalist view which the majority of Christians, (and certainly in your country), don't hold. Jesus taught us to pray "thy kingdom come on earth as in heaven". God, through Jesus, acknowledges that things aren't the way they should be, but as we can see in the teachings that we have of Jesus, we are called to enact in the present what will be fully realized in the future.One thing that is obvious to any theist is that God made us co-creators in the process. We are also in the view of I think pretty much any Christian, that we are given responsibility to be stewards of this planet and the life on it. So where there is suffering for whatever reason, we are called to do whatever we can to relieve it. Sometimes we do a good job of it and often we fail miserably but that is what we are called to.AS an aside, I think that a very good argument can be made for a Christian to be a vegetarian. I'm not, but I have a feeling that I probably should be.

We are just going around in circles. We aren't going to come to a conclusion so I will accept that we are just going to disagree.I'll try and state my point as simply as possible. Yes multiple natural processes exist. The question is why do they exist. Are they simply the result of more natural mindless processes or is there a point or points where a pre-existing intelligence was involved. The issue can't be proven and it boils down to a matter of belief. It is my view that the more reasonable conclusion is that intelligence was involved and you believe the opposite.

Very few atheists start out as atheists, most are brought up with the religion of their parents. I was brought up as a Christian I therefore know what my fairly standard, non-fundamental version of Christianity believes and teaches. I also attend various birth, death and marriage services and hear what is still preached. Please don't pretend I don't understand what Christians are taught and believe.However, I have pointed out many times here that it's almost impossible to discuss issues like this in a general manner because each one of you here believes different things about it. Essentially you each make up your own versions. It's true that I do refer to scripture because that is the origin of your belief - I'm not going to apologise for that. I know Adam and Eve is total fantasy, but that's what's written and taught. I accept too that most liberal Christians have abandoned those bits of the bible that are now known to be either too violent to depict the sort of god that is currently fashionable, or too childish for a grown-up to believe or just disproved by modern knowledge, but that leaves you with no anchor, simply making it up. Well of course intelligence is an emergent quality of an evolving brain so that idea can be immediately dismissed, but sure, if a god was necessary to create a system to start it all in motion, then he'd be pretty powerful. But he's not the omni-god we were all taught about beacuse he made such an appalling hash of it according to how he intended it all to work out.Of course, if you wish to walk away from every traditional idea of a Christian god, all powerful, all loving all seeing etc then you can say anything you like and this world can be as sick as it is without contradiction. But you can't have it both ways. I hate to drag you back to the bible because I know you think it's the preserve of the fundamentalist, but Jesus said that this kingdom would come within the lifetimes of the people he preached to. But it didn't happen and to get out of that trap you have to introduce another set of apologetics. The future, sadly, will not see any second coming; any improvement to our wellbeing will only come through our own efforts - as it always has. Well this is a terribly modern idea isn't it? This position would have been an anathema to a 17th century Christian. It's pure humanism - congratulations! This shows hope for the future, Western religion is fading into a liberal mush which is a very good thing indeed.

Where does it say "He" was with God in the beginning?Start by not capitalizing "Word" and not assuming that Jesus is the word. Now what do you have?

quote:

---

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory...

---

Doesn't that say that the word became Jesus, as opposed to having been Jesus from the beginning? I'm not reinterpreting anything. How could Jesus become something He always was? You're the one who's trying to shoehorn a lot of figurative language together to make sense.

We're not trying to prove an issue. We're talking specifically about Occam's razor.You can not make an explanation of your car simpler by insisting that it needs an invisible pink unicorn to pull it. You can believe it till the cows come home and you may even be right but you can't use Occam to back you up. If you can not prove it exists, you can not use it to simplify anything. You are flat-out contradicting Occam.

I doubt you'd find two Christians anywhere who have thought and read to any extent on the issues would agree on everything. The message is simple, it is all about love, love your neighbour, and even your enemy, but it is the theology that is open to interpretation.It is about understanding the nature of God and how it is to apply to our lives. So, yes in a sense we do worship the god we choose. I choose to worship God as embodied by Jesus. As far as Christianity is concerned I also believe that the Gospel writers got it right, that Jesus was bodily resurrected, that there is an ultimate plan for this creation, and that it won't end in oblivion but as part of a recreated world.You may call that wishful thinking but after considerable study I contend that it makes sense of my life and the world in a way that nothing else does. But I do absolutely have an anchor. I start with the absolute conviction that God resurrected Jesus and that Jesus perfectly embodied the nature of God. I can then look at the Sciptures through the lens of of Jesus’ life and teaching. So yes, I don’t believe that God ordered genocide or public stoning as it is totally inconsistent with what Jesus did and taught. I see the Bible as being God inspired but not God dictated.I do agree though that as you go through the OT the message of love that Jesus taught is in there as well. Jesus was a first century Jew speaking primarily to first century Jews. I have given you a couple of times my rationale for things being the way they are. If that means God is not as powerful as you were taught then so be it. I do believe that we are called, and have been given the tools to eliminate much of that suffering. I also believe that ultimately there will be perfect justice and a world without the short comings that you have pointed out. But that is a complete misreading of the texts. Jesus did establish an earthly Kingdom of His followers commanded to reflect God’s love into the world. Those readings are not about end times. That is why Jesus is referred to as being King in the present. A King requires a kingdom. Jesus would have understood this through His understanding from the book of Daniel 7:14 where the Son of Man is given dominion over a kingdom where people of all nations and languages might serve him. Jesus taught us in the Lord’s Prayer to pray that His Kingdom would come on Earth as in Heaven. It is a Kingdom established 2000 years ago, and is for the here and now as well as extending into the world to come.