User talk:Rollon067

From Conservapedia

You can sign your comments by typing ~~~~ Bohdan 01:48, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

From the Main Page discussion

These messages have been copied from the Main Page dicussion page so as to continue the conversation here:

If my world is baised by a non-Christian worldview (keeping in mind I used to be very, very Christian and have been down that road) then yours is certainly biased pro-Christian. You say that on occasion God takes it upon himself to intervene when this is something I, nor anybody I know, has experienced. I cannot directly refute these claims but I cannot accept them based on stories that have been re-re-retranslated and authored by people who's aim was to convey a message rather than record historcal accuracy. I have trouble beliving in a God who would divinely intervene to help the Hebrews slaughter their enemies yet who will not stop the violence in Darfur. Certainly if God had the power to intervene at one time he has not lost that power, and it would certainly be noble to be lent a hand here. I am not saying that the universe is godless (with no originating force nothing would be), but rather I no longer beleive in a fickle God who doles out punishments and selfishly picks the battles he fights while ignoring most of the plight of humanity. I know by people who are religious I will be told that we cannot look to God to solve our own problems but this is an argument that no longer stands; if God at one time was content intervening and leading the Hebrews out of their slavery why cannot he lead all those imprisoned out of their bondage? Is he silently saying that one man is worth more than another? That is a God I cannot believe in.

I think I did give an example of literal to metaphorical: the creation story. At one time it was widely believed as literal but as that view becomes less widespread the story still conveys the imperfection of humanity. The Cain and Abel story, while perhaps not true (as humanity could not genetically have started from just two people) becomes a metaphor for human agression, jealousy and redemption. Stories can and should have meaning beyond their literal texts.

My dates are not wrong. Look them up. The gospels (ceratinly the synoptics) were not written by the men who's name they bear. John is under dispute but it is more accepted that it was not written by the apostle. While it is true the other gospels are not part of the bible, it does not diminish their validity. Try reading Why Christianity Must Change or Die by Bishop Spong. He outlines very nicely how the Christian tradition grew and this is not some crazy off his rocker atheist, this is a man who genuinely believes in God but that a theistic god is leftover from a past when humanity was not okay with its own aloneness. The canon had not been accepted, even the authors of the gospels place Jesus' divinity in different places. Only when John came along as the last gospel was Jesus truly a god. Paul understood that Jesus' divnity was put in place by the ressurrection, the synoptics place it at his birth and John pre-birth, creating Jesus as an ever-existing figure.

And please, my friend, parables are beautiful no matter what you believe. Ghandi, though he did not beleive in Jesus as lord, thought he had a deep understanding of humanity. I think the same. I see no reason that I cannot appreciate his teachings.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rollon067 (talk)

I just dont see though how an all loving god could neglect genocide, injustice, rape, muder, theft, exploitation on such grand scales. It is what originally drove me away from a theistic Christian view of God. It seems if God is all loving then an plea in-earnest by anybody would be heard. If God is all powerful it seems to me that the power of this help would have no bounds. These are not my own dreamings but things stated ad nauseam by chruches, both Catholic and Protestant, and if God indeed has such power is omnipresent that it stands to reason that such a God would intervene where true injustice was occuring. That said, it has been a good debate/discussion type thing.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rollon067 (talk)

End of copied messages

"If my world is baised by a non-Christian worldview (keeping in mind I used to be very, very Christian and have been down that road) then yours is certainly biased pro-Christian.": Agreed. As someone once said, it's not a matter of whether you are biased or not, but which is the best bias to be biased with.

But my point in mentioning that your non-Christian worldview is that you were basing your arguments on it. That is, your arguments were based on your worldview. Even though I am biased towards my worldview, I am attempting to make my arguments on the basis of logic and evidence, not on the basis of my worldview, except on some occasions when I was trying to highlight your worldview-based arguments by doing the same in return.

"You say that on occasion God takes it upon himself to intervene when this is something I, nor anybody I know, has experienced.": I was referring to what the Bible claims. You are, of course, free to reject that claim, but the Bible does claim this, and it doesn't claim, as you were indicating, that God explicitly causes rain every time it rains.

"...based on stories that have been re-re-retranslated ...": What "re-re-retranslat[ions]"? The English Bibles we have today have, for the most part, undergone a single translation from the original Hebrew and Greek (mostly) to English.

"...authored by people who's aim was to convey a message rather than record historcal accuracy": Again, what evidence do you have for that? How do you know that their aim was not historical accuracy? Indeed, the evidence suggests otherwise. There's so many questions like this that I keep asking and you keep not answering, instead choosing to simply keep repeating unsubstantiated claims such as this. How about actually backing up claims like this?

"I have trouble beliving in a God who would divinely intervene to help the Hebrews slaughter their enemies yet who will not stop the violence in Darfur.": How do you know He won't? Did anybody ask Him to? (See also my last comment in this post.)

"...a fickle God who doles out punishments and selfishly picks the battles he fights while ignoring most of the plight of humanity.": You seem to know a fair bit about the motives and intentions of this God whom you reject! My point is that just because you don't understand why God doesn't act the way that you think he should is not reason to reject His existence (and I'm referring to the existence of the God described in the Bible, not a vague "originating force").

"...if God at one time was content intervening and leading the Hebrews out of their slavery why cannot he lead all those imprisoned out of their bondage?": Again, you don't know that God "cannot" do this, and just because you haven't the imagination or insight to know why He is acting in the way He does doesn't give you reason to reject His existence. I'm not saying, by the way, that you should not try to understand; just that not understanding it not itself reason for rejection.

"I think I did give an example of literal to metaphorical: the creation story.": Yes, you gave an example of something that you claimed was once intended to be literal and no longer is; but you didn't explain how this could be so.

"...humanity could not genetically have started from just two people": Why not? If God created Adam and Eve without any defects (genetic or otherwise), there should be no problem.

"The gospels (ceratinly the synoptics) were not written by the men who's name they bear.": So you say, but offer no evidence. I, on the other hand, provided you with a link to an article where the evidence for their authorship was explained. Please start substantiating your claims else this conversation is going nowhere.

"While it is true the other gospels are not part of the bible, it does not diminish their validity.": If they are not Divinely inspired, it does.

"Try reading Why Christianity Must Change or Die by Bishop Spong. He outlines very nicely how the Christian tradition grew and this is not some crazy off his rocker atheist, this is a man who genuinely believes in God but that a theistic god is leftover from a past when humanity was not okay with its own aloneness.": Oh, please. He is an apostate; he doesn't believe the book that he professes to teach from! He blames fundamentalism for the decline in Christianity, when it is the liberal part of the church that he represents that is in decline and the "fundamentalist" part that is growing!

"The canon had not been accepted,...": See here.

"... even the authors of the gospels place Jesus' divinity in different places. Only when John came along as the last gospel was Jesus truly a god. Paul understood that Jesus' divnity was put in place by the ressurrection, the synoptics place it at his birth and John pre-birth, creating Jesus as an ever-existing figure.": Your argument (again) presupposes your view regarding the date and development of the idea. To the extent that you are correct, you confuse date of writing with the date of the concept.

"I just dont see though how an all loving god could neglect genocide, injustice, rape, muder, theft, exploitation on such grand scales.": And if He did prevent it, you would not know about it, and whatever was still around (i.e. on a not-so-grand scale) would then seem to be atrocious, and if He prevented that also, then whatever was still around would then seem to be atrocious, ad infinitum, until the only bad things were pulling a girls hair or saying naughty words to people, and you, not having any experience with anything worse, would still consider that atrocious and make the same argument. God gave us this world, and we rejected Him, so He has given us our wish and left us to our own devices. He still cares, and His heart breaks, but we can't blame Him for our sins.

"It seems if God is all loving then an plea in-earnest by anybody would be heard.": It is heard, but He doesn't necessarily answer the way you want. And I strongly suspect that His actions, depending on the circumstances, depend on who is asking. For example, if a (relative) handful of Christians pray for rain during a drought, He might not answer their prayers, as doing so would be to help the entire population who have mostly rejected His help. But if the nation as a whole, or even the nation's leaders, humble themselves before Him and ask for His help, I expect that He would help.

Philip J. Rayment 02:37, 19 July 2007 (EDT)