I Know That God Does Not Exist

quote:

---

Of course God isn't subject to the judgments of the UN but the UN is subject to God's judgments.

---

The UN is quite able to define genocide - definitions are well within human capacities. Your talk of judgement is simply an attempt to avoid the facts. Which is all your spiritual things amount to. A pretext to pretend that you are right, when you obviously are not.

quote:

---

Your example is unclear. Abraham knew the Lord. God was not simply some character on a scroll.
And the U.N. is full of many different relative beliefs, including atheism.

---

The UN did not judge God, that was just one of Faith’s deceptions (and you fell for it).The UN simply came up with a definition of genocide that Faith doesn’t like. As if her opinion mattered. She routinely attacks experts who dare come to conclusions she doesn’t like - again with no regard for the truth.The issue is not respect for God - the issue is deference to Faith. And I do not think that the UN should be in any fear of God’s judgement over that.

quote:

---

Genocide means murder, it means UNJUST killing,

---

That is a claim about the definition. I posted the definition - do you see anything about UNJUST killing there ?

quote:

---

Therefore the attempt to define what God does in the terms given by the UN is upside down and backwards.

---

No it’s not. That is a highly authoritative definition - what the word means. So it is entirely appropriate to apply it in any case.

quote:

---

People just don't know how to think any more.

---

Obviously you don’t. You have written a whole lot of nonsense lately and this is just one example.

quote:

---

These critically thinking unbiased modern scholars do a terrible disservice by essentially allowing human wisdom to define and frame the bible apart from the traditional method of believing that God spoke through the original authors.

---

And why is knowing the truth bad?

quote:

---

God has been "stripped" of His power and authority by a bunch of human ants who don't even realize that they are being manipulated in the current and ongoing spiritual war.

---

That doesn’t follow at all. It really makes no sense.

quote:

---

The Bible itself challenges your "evidence".

---

But none of those are serious challenges. Moses doesn’t have to have written the books we have now for the laws to have come from him. The Jewish leaders could be wrong. The Book of Moses doesn’t have to be written by Moses any more than the Books of Job or Jonah or Esther were written by those persons.

quote:

---

Once you start examining the Bible from a human centrist perspective, the inerrancy wears off and the book is exposed as written by fallible humans and even a fallible God character.

---

I don’t think that the Bible endorses the idolatrous worship of men. But Biblical inerrancy is a creation of men and a false one. Why should we twist the Bible to defend a falsehood invented by men?

quote:

---

Moses and Abraham both knew God. Modern Scholars have twisted it to "prove" that nobody can really know God nor Jesus and that the books have value only in the context of humanist teaching on how to live.

---

Presumably you meant liberal theologians rather than modern scholars. But is their teaching really worse? I would think that that would be quite difficult, the more so since they put an emphasis on the teachings attributed to Jesus.

quote:

---

The truth that you market is the "truth" compiled through human "evidence". The truth I seek to present is that of an eternally alive Jesus Christ, (Gods very human character) communing with humanity. Being an atheist, you support a human-created(or evolving) truth.

---

That’s the apologists point of view. Having decided on your truth the real truth does not matter. Where I endorse the best efforts of humans to discover the truth you reject them, setting yourself up as a false god. Hardly a Christian attitude.

quote:

---

The whole point is to be able to commune with God.

---

No, the whole point is to set yourself up as the determiner of truth.

I’d suggest that religion is as often a barrier to growth as a sign of it. At least. Focussing on dogma and clinging to it no matter what is not the way.

I think that this is rather vague and in places confused.This paragraph is particularly bad: First, this confuses methods of seeking the truth with the truth itself. The discipline applies to the methods and is the reason why the scientific method is an effective tool. You cannot deny the fallibility of human beings, which makes the discipline necessary. Yet, you cast discipline aside to claim a special relationship with “Truth” which you claim gives you truthful answers to questions which we cannot otherwise find reliable answers to.I think it is perfectly legitimate to reject such claims in the absence of good reasons to think otherwise. Claims of revelation are clearly not trustworthy. It is far from clear that even personal experiences of “revelation” are what they appear to be or provide reliable information. In effect you are asking that beliefs you favour be given a pass on the tests and checks - and on fallacious grounds.This point is also dubious: Is it really true that the way that people “experience the reality of their faiths” is at odds with AZPaul’s assertions? Even if we restrict it to the realm of religious belief there are uncomfortable questions. Do some experience that Jesus is the literal Son of God and others that Jesus is only a human prophet - that God cannot have a literal son? Either this experienced “truth” is severely restricted in scope, or it is so subjective that the same claim can be both true and a blasphemous falsehood. Neither option seems likely to be helpful to you.The question of whether we live in a simulation is equally unhelpful to you. There are sound pragmatic reasons for ignoring it in most respects and its unfalsifiability is a red flag. Intellectual acceptance of the possibility is about all it deserves. Insisting that there is any failure or a reliance on anything akin to religious faith in refusing to grant it any more than that is unjustified.

quote:

---

But don't we know all the rest of the story of the former character you spoke of? I take it that He was the one that died on the cross. Shouldn’t we see Him as unique that voluntarily gave His life instead of merely having been killed?
​

---

We don’t know the story. The historical person is lost to us. We don’t know if he gave up his life voluntarily or not or why he did.

quote:

---

Why did He give His life but for the purpose of bringing you and me vital and otherwise impossible hope and that He conquered death for us? What do we think of anyone that gave His life for us? What do we think that such an individual thinks of you and me?

---

We just don’t know. There are many possibilities.

quote:

---

What did the US DOI tell us? Did it not say from God the Creator? That makes our worth very, very great! Isn’t that the basis of why the US separated from England to create a nation whose laws are based on the Bible? Its unfortunate our nation (the US) gradually strayed away from much of it.
​

---

Now there is a lot of falsehood there. The United States was founded as a secular state, where laws would not be based on the Bible. And it is sad that it has drifted away from that. It is not sad that you can no longer hang people for being Quakers, or deny Catholics the right to vote or hold office.

quote:

---

Science is knowledge. Faith is trust that’s based on knowledge. A merchant cannot stand without his customers’ trust. Our trust in a good merchant is based on his good performance.

---

Which is why we can’t trust Christianity.