Is it good to ignore the bad in the Bible?

[marco]

Let's take Deuteronomy's advice on how to deal with a disobedient, drunkard of a son.


Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

How can we read this advice and still have regard for the Bible as a holy book?
Is it even correct to allow such advice to be printed in a modern society?
Or can anyone see ANY good in these verses?

[tam]

[Replying to post 123 by Blastcat]

But I was not giving the orthodox meaning. Just sharing some things I have understood.

Are those things you "understand" debatable?

Sure, why not? This is a debate forum, after all.

I meant were these things you understand "TRUE"? things, or merely your opinions.

Let me be a LITTLE bit more precise. You seem to not have understood what I meant by the question:

Is your UNDERSTANDING something that is TRUE or is it just an OPINION that may or may NOT be true?

Are your beliefs TRUE?

1. Yes?
2. No?

Unless I have misunderstood, the things that I wrote in post 88 (the post this one draws upon) are true. But there may be more to yet learn on the topic. Not something contradictory, just more details.

Examine the data, seek and/or research for yourself, decide for yourself.

I'm always asking theists :

"WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT?"

I need reasons for WHY I should believe what some theist says, not just WHAT I could believe if I only just WANTED to enough. I have to be given a REASON to want to believe enough to suspend my better judgement, tam.

If you had a reason to believe then you would not be suspending your better judgment. Since 'theists' have reasons to believe - reasons that might or might not be good enough for you were you to hear/experience them - they are not suspending their better judgment by believing.

I need a VERY convincing reason to abandon my REASON.

Why would you abandon reason? I have not abandoned reason in order to have faith.

I just don't WANT to believe things that aren't true, tam.

Neither do I, Blastcat.

Can you offer us a very good reason to believe what you do?

1. Yes.
2. No.

Good reasons for me, yes.

I ask all theists to tell me why what they believe should be taken as TRUE.. Show me that MECHANISM, that REASONING, THAT LOGIC, THE FACTS or I'm going to keep pointing out that they haven't. I think I've been doing that from the get go, in here.

You're looking to the wrong people to convince you. We can do no more than point to the One you need to look at if you want to know what is true. Perhaps share some things from Him if He has given us something to share, something that might help you to see something in a new light or way; some seed (a point, an argument, a testimony, a truth or fact about something, etc). We cannot make that seed grow.

If people haven't met their burden of proof, they are just blowing hot air.

Theists will GLADLY tell us "I believe this.. " I believe that... " and so on and so on and so on... AND SOME go as far ( not just yourself, tam ) as to say that they are in a debate forum but they are not here to CONVINCE anyone.

Yes, and some non-theists make the exact same claim (that they are not here to convince anyone).

But I keep asking theists to at least TRY to convince us of something.

If a theist is conversing with you, then that should at least meet your request with regard to trying. Otherwise why converse with you to begin with?

If we can't tell which one of you has a true belief, why should we bother with any of them?

That is a question for you to answer.

I answer my own question with a resounding NO.
But I asked you the question because I already KNOW my own answer, so I wanted to know YOUR answer.

I don't have an answer to your question about what you should do in this. Other than... that is a question for you to answer. It pertains to you; therefore, you - not me - get to answer it.

Theists keep telling us WHAT they believe as if we should be somehow automatically convinced that it's "true". And of course, it's not reasonable to ACCEPT that what ANYONE believes is true on POOR on NON EXISTENT evidence.

Do you think it's reasonable to decide something based on TOTAL IGNORANCE?

( that's another non-rhetorical yes/no kind of question )

Are you sure? Because that sounds like a rhetorical question to me.

Just so there is no room for misunderstanding: of course that is not reasonable.

If you don't know the truth, why should we bother with your opinions?

In this particular instance, so that I can at least understand the position of the person I am speaking to and hopefully have a more productive conversation because of it.

Are you merely speculating?

1. Yes.
2. No.

No. I was attempting to respond to a discussion that requires a definition of original sin.

Hence, I asked for the definition that Ted was using.

What about that Genesis sin that Adam and Eve committed. Wasn't that the whole REASON for Christianity?

It was a reason for Christ. But I'm not sure what that has to do with the point I was responding to, to begin with.

It was the reason for CHRIST...

How do you get direct quote wrong, lol?

I said it was A reason for Christ.

Does CHRIST have anything to do with Christianity in your opinion?

1. Yes.
2. No.

The faith, yes, everything.

The (organized) religion, no. Except to call His people to come out.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JLB32168]

I will post immediate credit to these good-doers-in-Allah's name when you tell me who they are.

Do you mean Christians or Muslims since Arabs of both faiths refer to God as Allah? Aside from that, modern number systems in the west are a contribution of the Arabs. Mathematics is still highly regarded in the Middle East.
Fatima and Miriam al-Firhi, created the worlds first university, Al-Qarawiyyin in Fez, Morocco, in 859 AD

Al-Zahrawi, often called the father of surgery, wrote an illustrated encyclopedia that would ultimately be used as a guide to European surgeons for the next five hundred years.

Mohammad Abdus Salam, a Pakistani theoretical physicist, shared a 1979 Nobel Prize for his contribution to the field of theoretical physics, specifically in unifying electromagnetic and weak forces.

You cannot attribute only evil things to religion while ignoring the good things. Many Muslims kill in the name of their religion. Many more preach against terrorism w/their ideas informed by the same Muslim faith. I suppose one could argue that the absence of religion would eliminate the argument altogether but weve already shown that atheists are just as prone to violence and/or peace as anyone else.

[Peds nurse]

Let's take Deuteronomy's advice on how to deal with a disobedient, drunkard of a son.


Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

How can we read this advice and still have regard for the Bible as a holy book?
Is it even correct to allow such advice to be printed in a modern society?
Or can anyone see ANY good in these verses?

Hello Mr. Marco! I hope you are well this morning!

I am wondering, what constitutes bad? The way I read the snippet from the Bible, that you quoted is this: We have a grown man, or at least one that is capable of working, and earning his keep. What we know of him, is that he is a drunk and not only rebellious, but he sits around gorging himself on food. He has withstood the countless corrections from his parents, maybe grandparents too. This however, is to no avail. There isn't any counseling, no twelve step program, no Dr. Phil, or crash diet course. The only intervention, is death...which the young man is slowly doing to himself. Hopefully, others witnessing the tragedy, will learn a lesson, and save themselves.

This isn't applicable to today's world, in a sense that we don't stone our children. What is applicable is that if one get's drunk all the time, eats his fill, and does no work, and takes little or no guidance from those who love him/her, it kills the relationships with the people who love him, and sets themselves up for the death of a life not lived to one's potential.

Blessings for a wonderful day!

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 141 by tam]

I'm going to jump in here. I expect that Blastcat will echo what I say.

Blastcat asks

Is your UNDERSTANDING something that is TRUE or is it just an OPINION that may or may NOT be true?

Are your beliefs TRUE?

1. Yes?
2. No?

tam responds with

Unless I have misunderstood, the things that I wrote in post 88 (the post this one draws upon) are true.

So let's go back and repost what tam said in post 88, just so readers understand what tam is saying is true, in response to Blastcat's question.

tam, post 88, page 9 of this thread

Original sin is just that - the ORIGINAL sin.

It is not that we inherit (the guilt of) that. But we can and do inherit the effects of that choice... just as our own children will inherit the effects of our decisions and choices (good and bad). For example, if we ruin the earth, our children live with the effect of what we have done. If we go to war, our children inherit the consequences/effects of that war.


That is just cause and effect.

No child is punished by God for the sins of the father. But children can suffer for generations BECAUSE of the sins of their fathers.


God is the One who has provided us a way BACK to His house, and to the tree of Life. Despite the choice that His son - the first Adam - made for his (Adam's) own offspring. Even despite the mess that those offspring make for themselves and their children.

So to sum what tam says is true
1) There was an original sin
2) Descendants of the original sinner suffer the effects of the original sin
3) This is just cause and effect
4) This is not a punishment from God - no child is punished by God for what their parents did.
5) First Adam made a mess and God has provided a way back to his house.
----
Okay, I have some follow up questions
Relating to 4) The Book of Genesis states flat out that what happens to Adam, Eve and the snake ARE punishments. It's not like they magically transformed themselves and all of existence...no, it is God who curses Adam and his offspring with having to toil in the fields, Eve and her offspring with pains in childbirth (where presumably there weren't any pains before) and the snake with having to crawl on his belly and eat dirt.
So my question in regards to 4) is...why say it is not a punishment from God when your very own holy book states otherwise?

Relating to 3) What caused the toil in the fields, the pains in childbirth? I think you might find that the answer begins with G. As a thinking agent, as THE (presumed thinking agent, God had a choice as to what to do. Saying 'cause and effect' here is sorta like saying that God had no choice but to do what he did in Genesis, and my follow up question to 3) is...what can gainsay God? What can force God to punish someone if he doesn't really want to? I presume here that God doesn't want to punish, since you claim he didn't punish anyone.
-----
Now in regards to Blastcat's overall question...since this is 'true' as you say, can you demonstrate it to be true? I notice that later on in your response you answer with no.

------
Blastcat asks

"WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT?"

I need reasons for WHY I should believe what some theist says, not just WHAT I could believe if I only just WANTED to enough. I have to be given a REASON to want to believe enough to suspend my better judgement, tam.

tam responds with

If you had a reason to believe then you would not be suspending your better judgment. Since 'theists' have reasons to believe - reasons that might or might not be good enough for you were you to hear/experience them - they are not suspending their better judgment by believing.

I notice that in your response here, you don't answer BC's question. You don't provide BC with a reason and then say that theists have reasons to believe. But that is a red herring - BC didn't ask 'Do theists believe, do they have reasons', he asked why 'we' (presumably meaning current non-believers) should believe. You then say that theists are not suspending their better judgement, but you don't give evidence of that.
You yourself are a theist. You yourself believe, you have provided reasons before for why it is you believe (you hear Christ) but despite numerous requests from us non-believers (including yours truly) you have never not once even attempted to demonstrate that your reason is true.
Just assert it.
You claim God wants us to come back to his house, but despite us asking for you to demonstrate that that itself is true, you refuse and/or cannot do so. You have responded in the past with exhortations for us (non-believers) to listen to Christ, despite us (including yours truly) saying to you that we don't hear anything even remotely supernatural.

----
Blastcat says

I need a VERY convincing reason to abandon my REASON.

tam responds with

Why would you abandon reason? I have not abandoned reason in order to have faith.

Let me remind readers that tam has frequently asserted that she hears a magical voice that supposedly tells her nothing but the truth, but has never not once demonstrated this. For some unexplored reason, she doesn't ask herself why we non-believers say we don't hear this magical voice if it supposedly is talking to us. She doesn't explore the paradox of a voice that (supposedly) wants us to come back to God's house, yet is completely silent towards her debate opponents.
-----
Blastcat asks

Can you offer us a very good reason to believe what you do?

1. Yes.
2. No.

tam responds with

Good reasons for me, yes.

I don't think BC asked what reasons do YOU have. What reasons can you offer to non-believers to believe whatever it is you believe?
Your answer just says (paraphrasing) "I believe for good reasons"...and then ends right there. You don't actually offer those reasons (but I'd guess you'd go by the old chestnut of hearing Christ a.k.a. Truth), which unfortunately for your position here in this debate is not a good reason for a current non-believer.
The non-believer does NOT hear this voice you claim to hear, and even if I or BC did, we wouldn't have a reason to just promote this voice to Truth with a capital T.

-----
Blastcat asks

I ask all theists to tell me why what they believe should be taken as TRUE.. Show me that MECHANISM, that REASONING, THAT LOGIC, THE FACTS or I'm going to keep pointing out that they haven't. I think I've been doing that from the get go, in here.

tam responds with

You're looking to the wrong people to convince you. We can do no more than point to the One you need to look at if you want to know what is true. Perhaps share some things from Him if He has given us something to share, something that might help you to see something in a new light or way; some seed (a point, an argument, a testimony, a truth or fact about something, etc). We cannot make that seed grow.

Readers, notice that tam has made frequent assertions on this website of hearing Christ, that Christ is a voice we can all hear, that Christ speaks (or indeed, IS) Truth with a capital T...but admits she cannot do anything to convince non-believers.
She is pointing to her side, saying there is a magic man with a magic voice there, and I (and others) are looking to what is (to us) empty space and back at her again.
Even in the extremely low probability of there being an actual magic man with a magic voice there, this man has failed completely. He has not told tam what to say in order to convince us, like with my sheet of paper challenge.
-----
Blastcat says

If people haven't met their burden of proof, they are just blowing hot air.

Theists will GLADLY tell us "I believe this.. " I believe that... " and so on and so on and so on... AND SOME go as far ( not just yourself, tam ) as to say that they are in a debate forum but they are not here to CONVINCE anyone.

tam responds with

Yes, and some non-theists make the exact same claim (that they are not here to convince anyone).

tam remember, one of your assertions that you say is true, let me quote it from the beginning of your post is

God is the One who has provided us a way BACK to His house, and to the tree of Life.

yet somehow, the voice that you believe is God, is Christ, is Truth, has not provided you with the willingness or the words to say to do just that? Ask yourself why, if the Christ that you hear really wants us to come back to his house, he hasn't told you to actually go out there and convince us, and what to say to accomplish this goal.

-----
Blastcat says

But I keep asking theists to at least TRY to convince us of something.

tam responds with

If a theist is conversing with you, then that should at least meet your request with regard to trying. Otherwise why converse with you to begin with?

tam, a theist (such as yourself) listing what you believe to be true with no attempt made to actually convince us that what you say is true is NOT trying to convince us. It's just mere assertions, empty of substance.
In my mind, you are extremely confused as to convincing someone actually entails, what it involves.
-----
Blast asks

I answer my own question with a resounding NO.
But I asked you the question because I already KNOW my own answer, so I wanted to know YOUR answer.

tam responds with

I don't have an answer to your question about what you should do in this. Other than... that is a question for you to answer. It pertains to you; therefore, you - not me - get to answer it.

Have you ever asked yourself why the voice that you hear does not do anything to persuade Blastcat, myself or countless others that it is indeed real, above and beyond claims from other people about hearing voices that are not the voice that you hear?
Need I remind you that plenty of us here are former followers of Christ, and that, in my case at the very least, I stopped because Christ never bothered showing himself to be real?
-----
Blastcat asks

Theists keep telling us WHAT they believe as if we should be somehow automatically convinced that it's "true". And of course, it's not reasonable to ACCEPT that what ANYONE believes is true on POOR on NON EXISTENT evidence.

Do you think it's reasonable to decide something based on TOTAL IGNORANCE?

( that's another non-rhetorical yes/no kind of question )

tam responds with

Are you sure? Because that sounds like a rhetorical question to me.

Just so there is no room for misunderstanding: of course that is not reasonable.

Again, to remind readers, tam has made strong assertions about a god existing, which god it is, what this god wants for us to do, what happened in the past with regards to this god...and yet is content to sit back and do nothing to convince anyone else that any of these claims are true, despite one of the claims being that coming back to God is super-special-awesome (paraphrasing).
Audience - does the word hypocrite apply here?

-----
Blastcat asks

Does CHRIST have anything to do with Christianity in your opinion?

1. Yes.
2. No.

tam responds with

The faith, yes, everything.

The (organized) religion, no. Except to call His people to come out.

Readers, in my eyes, this is an attempt to credit Christ with all the 'good' stuff (the faith) and not credit him for any of the bad stuff (the organized religion).
So Christ can waltz into the Middle East, preach a message to people, have them believe him, disappear and have NO responsibility for what happens afterward, despite still being very much present (at the very least, in the form of a voice that people supposedly can hear).
Why didn't this voice do anything to prevent the Crusades, for example? I say the voice did nothing (because in my mind it is non-existent) because that runs counter to the claims tam makes about the voice, of it being Truth, of it loving us and wanting us to come back to God.

a slave of Christ

still insulting all real slaves throughout the world.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 142 by JLB32168]

Aside from that, modern number systems in the west are a contribution of the Arabs. Mathematics is still highly regarded in the Middle East.
Fatima and Miriam al-Firhi, created the worlds first university, Al-Qarawiyyin in Fez, Morocco, in 859 AD

Is this you suggesting that mathematical advances and universities simply would not and could not have existed in a world without followers of a religion?

Mohammad Abdus Salam, a Pakistani theoretical physicist, shared a 1979 Nobel Prize for his contribution to the field of theoretical physics, specifically in unifying electromagnetic and weak forces.

Anywhere in Salam's written work, does he ever plug "God" or "Allah" into his equations? Was his work impossible for a non-God-believer to accomplish?

You cannot attribute only evil things to religion while ignoring the good things.

I for one don't do that. What I do is question the claim that these 'good' things (whatever they may be) can only have been accomplished by those who subscribe to a religion.

I suppose one could argue that the absence of religion would eliminate the argument altogether

Yes, the absence of a religion that talks about what a god supposedly wants but who never shows himself to all, would eliminate the argument.
I question the intelligence of such a proposed being. Why design and found a religion when they can be shown to be harmful?

but weve already shown that atheists are just as prone to violence and/or peace as anyone else.

True, and religious people can be described the exact same way.

[JLB32168]

Is this you suggesting that mathematical advances and universities simply would not and could not have existed in a world without followers of a religion?

I have absolutely no idea how you ever arrived at that conclusion based upon anything I said to Marco. He said I would need to give examples where people did things in Allahs name and I provided examples. If you want to believe that they would have done had they been atheists then youre free to do so. I honestly dont understand the adversarial timbre of your post.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 143 by Peds nurse]

I am wondering, what constitutes bad?

We have to answer this question before pointing to any one being. If you point to a God and say "His actions are good" without having a pre-set determination of what 'good' consists of, what worth is the declaration?

We have a grown man, or at least one that is capable of working, and earning his keep. What we know of him, is that he is a drunk and not only rebellious, but he sits around gorging himself on food.

Why do you imply that he doesn't work? I've known men who were drunkards, but who still worked hard when push came to shove.
I myself am a glutton, but I still work hard.
Why is rebellion against parents automatically a bad thing? I speak from my own experience, where my father was a child rapist and my mother emotionally and psychologically abused me and my siblings.

The only intervention, is death...which the young man is slowly doing to himself.

No, this is false. The Deuteronomy quote that marco posted says that the cause of his death where his neighbours killing him by throwing stones at him, a practice that continues today.

Hopefully, others witnessing the tragedy, will learn a lesson, and save themselves.

Does this lesson come before or after they've dragged the young man out into the village square, declared him to have earned a violent death for nothing more than not listening to his parents and for being a glutton...and then doing the violent deed, throwing heavy stones at him until he dies?
Think about what you're defending here. You're defending a supposed 'teaching from God' that says it is all right to declare rebellious, gluttonous youths as having earned a very violent death.

This isn't applicable to today's world, in a sense that we don't stone our children.

But for some unexplored reason, the God who supposedly loved us all and wanted to guide us away from violence...taught us to do violence to one another?

at is applicable is that if one get's drunk all the time, eats his fill, and does no work, and takes little or no guidance from those who love him/her, it kills the relationships with the people who love him, and sets themselves up for the death of a life not lived to one's potential.

So I ask you to ask yourself...why didn't Deuteronomy say this? Why the teaching, the command, to kill such a person with heavy stones?
I can agree perfectly with leaving an alcoholic, gluttonous, lazy person to suffer what they naturally reap...but violent executions at the hands of neighbours isn't natural.
I'm perfectly fine with teaching people "Gorge yourself on food and with no exercise, and you'll more than likely die of a heart attack".
I'm NOT okay with teaching people "Gorge yourself on food and with no exercise...and we'll kill you with heavy stones".

[marco]

Again, I hesitate to make the characterization, but this smacks of some kind of prejudice towards a religion of over a billion people. It is hard to believe that one could make such a blanket statement about people saying that they doubt the inherent decency of even one amongst them.

Buried in your adopted name, Vespasian, is the little Italian word vespa, meaning wasp, but I hesitate to regard your comment as waspish, just perhaps a misunderstanding. Of course there are millions of good Muslim people - I don't believe that Allah should get any credit for their goodness. They are good despite rather than because of their faith.

I do not believe that Allah exists and so no one has done any good in Allah's name. They have done good because they are good people who mistakenly acted through Allah. That is why I added the comment:

"I suspect they did something for their fellow Islamists, and because of Muhammad's instruction."

That Islam has a billion worshippers is neither here nor there as far as truth goes.

In any case, I was saddened by the recent passing of Pakistans Abdul Sattar Edhi and any one that has access to a computer should ponder his legacy.

Thank you for presenting a fine example of a philanthropist, Vespasian. Apparently he was regarded as the Father Theresa of Pakistan, a country that needs all the philanthropists it can get. It shows that flowers can bloom in the harshest of circumstances.

[tam]

Unless I have misunderstood, the things that I wrote in post 88 (the post this one draws upon) are true.

So let's go back and repost what tam said in post 88, just so readers understand what tam is saying is true, in response to Blastcat's question.

tam, post 88, page 9 of this thread

Original sin is just that - the ORIGINAL sin.

It is not that we inherit (the guilt of) that. But we can and do inherit the effects of that choice... just as our own children will inherit the effects of our decisions and choices (good and bad). For example, if we ruin the earth, our children live with the effect of what we have done. If we go to war, our children inherit the consequences/effects of that war.


That is just cause and effect.

No child is punished by God for the sins of the father. But children can suffer for generations BECAUSE of the sins of their fathers.


God is the One who has provided us a way BACK to His house, and to the tree of Life. Despite the choice that His son - the first Adam - made for his (Adam's) own offspring. Even despite the mess that those offspring make for themselves and their children.

So to sum what tam says is true
1) There was an original sin

Yes.

2) Descendants of the original sinner suffer the effects of the original sin

Yes, as per my example about children inheriting the mess the parents make.

3) This is just cause and effect

Yes, again, as per my example.

4) This is not a punishment from God - no child is punished by God for what their parents did.

I have a feeling that you have personally added to 'no child is punished by God for the sins of their fathers' with 'no one is punished for sin' (though I would use the word discipline, not punished)

5) First Adam made a mess and God has provided a way back to his house.

Yes.

----
Okay, I have some follow up questions
Relating to 4) The Book of Genesis states flat out that what happens to Adam, Eve and the snake ARE punishments. It's not like they magically transformed themselves and all of existence...no, it is God who curses Adam and his offspring with having to toil in the fields, Eve and her offspring with pains in childbirth (where presumably there weren't any pains before) and the snake with having to crawl on his belly and eat dirt.
So my question in regards to 4) is...why say it is not a punishment from God when your very own holy book states otherwise?

And this is why I think you unintentionally added to my words.

I said no child is punished by God for the sins of their fathers.

And since this discussion is about original sin, and the consequences of that - death being the wage of sin (cause and effect) - then that death was not a punishment by God. It was a consequence. Scripture DOES back that up.

Scripture states:

"If you eat, you will die."

Scripture does not state:

"If you eat, I will kill you."


It is a warning against doing something that will harm them; not a threat of punishment.

Relating to 3) What caused the toil in the fields,

Cursed is the ground because of you (Adam). Death is a curse, and Adam let death into the world.

the pains in childbirth?

I am not sure the truth of this one. But for a time I thought God cursed the ground as a punishment to Adam, and that thinking was in error. So I will wait for understanding to be granted on the issue of Eve and childbirth. Of course, without these specific physical bodies, there might have been no pain at all in bringing forth life.

Speaking from the pov of a woman and a mother, however, the physical pain is nothing compared to any emotional pain that we might feel knowing our children are in pain, or doing things that we can see will cause them pain at some point - emotional or physical. Eve had one son murder one of her other sons. I guarantee the pain of childbirth was NOTHING compared to the pain in that.

Now in regards to Blastcat's overall question...since this is 'true' as you say, can you demonstrate it to be true? I notice that later on in your response you answer with no.

Yes, actually, I can demonstrate from scripture that Adam and Eve died because they ate - and NOT because God killed them as punishment. Because that is what is DIRECTLY stated.

"If you eat, you will die"... NOT ..."If you eat, I will kill you."

I can also demonstrate from scripture that God does not punish the children for the sins of their fathers. As this is also clearly stated.

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin. Deut 24:16

Obviously, many among Israel thought otherwise, but were corrected for this error:

"What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: "'The parents eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child--both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die. "Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right. He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife or have sexual relations with a woman during her period. He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked. He does not lend to them at interest or take a profit from them. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between two parties. He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign LORD. "Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things (though the father has done none of them): "He eats at the mountain shrines. He defiles his neighbor's wife. He oppresses the poor and needy. He commits robbery. He does not return what he took in pledge. He looks to the idols. He does detestable things. He lends at interest and takes a profit. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he is to be put to death; his blood will be on his own head. "But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things: He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife. He does not oppress anyone or require a pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked. He withholds his hand from mistreating the poor and takes no interest or profit from them. He keeps my laws and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live.

But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. Ezekiel 18

And of course when Israel sinned after leaving Egypt but showing no faith in going to the promised land, it was the generation that showed no faith that was prevented from entering the promised land. After they died, the children were permitted to enter.


**

Now, you will say that scripture is not proof. But where is the proof that God does punish children for the sins of the father?

I don't believe things without a reason, and I have no reason to believe that God punishes children for the sins of the father.

Blastcat asks

"WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT?"

I need reasons for WHY I should believe what some theist says, not just WHAT I could believe if I only just WANTED to enough. I have to be given a REASON to want to believe enough to suspend my better judgement, tam.

tam responds with

If you had a reason to believe then you would not be suspending your better judgment. Since 'theists' have reasons to believe - reasons that might or might not be good enough for you were you to hear/experience them - they are not suspending their better judgment by believing.

I notice that in your response here, you don't answer BC's question. You don't provide BC with a reason and then say that theists have reasons to believe. But that is a red herring - BC didn't ask 'Do theists believe, do they have reasons', he asked why 'we' (presumably meaning current non-believers) should believe.

Correct. I did not answer his question. I chose instead to correct what he seemed to be implying. That one must suspend their better judgment in order to believe.

You then say that theists are not suspending their better judgement, but you don't give evidence of that.
You yourself are a theist. You yourself believe, you have provided reasons before for why it is you believe (you hear Christ) but despite numerous requests from us non-believers (including yours truly) you have never not once even attempted to demonstrate that your reason is true.
Just assert it.
You claim God wants us to come back to his house, but despite us asking for you to demonstrate that that itself is true, you refuse and/or cannot do so. You have responded in the past with exhortations for us (non-believers) to listen to Christ, despite us (including yours truly) saying to you that we don't hear anything even remotely supernatural.

I have not responded with exhortations for you (non-believers) to listen to Christ. I have said that if you WANT truth THEN listen to Christ. Even if you just start out with what He is written to have said.

----
Blastcat says

I need a VERY convincing reason to abandon my REASON.

tam responds with

Why would you abandon reason? I have not abandoned reason in order to have faith.

Let me remind readers that tam has frequently asserted that she hears a magical voice that supposedly tells her nothing but the truth, but has never not once demonstrated this. For some unexplored reason, she doesn't ask herself why we non-believers say we don't hear this magical voice if it supposedly is talking to us. She doesn't explore the paradox of a voice that (supposedly) wants us to come back to God's house, yet is completely silent towards her debate opponents.

You are making assumptions about what I have or have not wondered; what I have or have not asked.

-----
Blastcat asks

Can you offer us a very good reason to believe what you do?

1. Yes.
2. No.

tam responds with

Good reasons for me, yes.

I don't think BC asked what reasons do YOU have. What reasons can you offer to non-believers to believe whatever it is you believe?
Your answer just says (paraphrasing) "I believe for good reasons"...and then ends right there. You don't actually offer those reasons (but I'd guess you'd go by the old chestnut of hearing Christ a.k.a. Truth), which unfortunately for your position here in this debate is not a good reason for a current non-believer.
The non-believer does NOT hear this voice you claim to hear, and even if I or BC did, we wouldn't have a reason to just promote this voice to Truth with a capital T.

I misread. I thought Blastcat had asked if I had good reasons to believe.

But please keep in mind the last sentence above which I bolded and underlined.

-----
Blastcat asks

I ask all theists to tell me why what they believe should be taken as TRUE.. Show me that MECHANISM, that REASONING, THAT LOGIC, THE FACTS or I'm going to keep pointing out that they haven't. I think I've been doing that from the get go, in here.

tam responds with

You're looking to the wrong people to convince you. We can do no more than point to the One you need to look at if you want to know what is true. Perhaps share some things from Him if He has given us something to share, something that might help you to see something in a new light or way; some seed (a point, an argument, a testimony, a truth or fact about something, etc). We cannot make that seed grow.

Readers, notice that tam has made frequent assertions on this website of hearing Christ, that Christ is a voice we can all hear, that Christ speaks (or indeed, IS) Truth with a capital T...but admits she cannot do anything to convince non-believers.
She is pointing to her side, saying there is a magic man with a magic voice there, and I (and others) are looking to what is (to us) empty space and back at her again.
Even in the extremely low probability of there being an actual magic man with a magic voice there, this man has failed completely. He has not told tam what to say in order to convince us, like with my sheet of paper challenge.

And this is where the bold part above comes in. You do not believe that hearing his voice would mean that you are hearing Christ and/or truth.

Receiving a response to your sheet paper challenge would not convince you of who it is speaking to me.

-----
Blastcat says

If people haven't met their burden of proof, they are just blowing hot air.

Theists will GLADLY tell us "I believe this.. " I believe that... " and so on and so on and so on... AND SOME go as far ( not just yourself, tam ) as to say that they are in a debate forum but they are not here to CONVINCE anyone.

tam responds with

Yes, and some non-theists make the exact same claim (that they are not here to convince anyone).

tam remember, one of your assertions that you say is true, let me quote it from the beginning of your post is

God is the One who has provided us a way BACK to His house, and to the tree of Life.

yet somehow, the voice that you believe is God, is Christ, is Truth, has not provided you with the willingness or the words to say to do just that? Ask yourself why, if the Christ that you hear really wants us to come back to his house, he hasn't told you to actually go out there and convince us, and what to say to accomplish this goal.

Even those who should have known Him in person did not believe Him. So there is no convincing for some.

Those who ARE His sheep will hear His voice.

But not everyone is His sheep. Not everyone seeks Him. Not everyone even wants to know the truth.

-----
Blastcat says

But I keep asking theists to at least TRY to convince us of something.

tam responds with

If a theist is conversing with you, then that should at least meet your request with regard to trying. Otherwise why converse with you to begin with?

tam, a theist (such as yourself) listing what you believe to be true with no attempt made to actually convince us that what you say is true is NOT trying to convince us. It's just mere assertions, empty of substance.

To be clear, I was originally conversing with Ted, who I assume is aware of what is written.

An atheist who is debating Christianity should probably also be aware of what is written if such a person wants to debate some points OF the faith. But now that you (an atheist) have asked, having not been aware of what is written, I provided that above.

In my mind, you are extremely confused as to convincing someone actually entails, what it involves.

If I was confused, I would say that I could convince you. But I know that I cannot.
I can only share with you as I am given, what Christ has said, even if just from what is written. What you do with that and where you go with any of that is not up to me.

Blastcat asks

Does CHRIST have anything to do with Christianity in your opinion?

1. Yes.
2. No.

tam responds with

The faith, yes, everything.

The (organized) religion, no. Except to call His people to come out.

Readers, in my eyes, this is an attempt to credit Christ with all the 'good' stuff (the faith) and not credit him for any of the bad stuff (the organized religion).
So Christ can waltz into the Middle East, preach a message to people, have them believe him, disappear and have NO responsibility for what happens afterward, despite still being very much present (at the very least, in the form of a voice that people supposedly can hear).
Why didn't this voice do anything to prevent the Crusades, for example? I say the voice did nothing (because in my mind it is non-existent) because that runs counter to the claims tam makes about the voice, of it being Truth, of it loving us and wanting us to come back to God.

How is He responsible for people choosing NOT to listen to or obey Him?

People like to pass the buck, but if people choose not to listen, and choose to go their own way, that is on them.

Christ says "bless those who hate you". If someone decides to curse those who hate them instead, how is that the fault of Christ?

The crimes from the crusades (or inquisition or burning heretics, etc) are committed by people NOT listening to Him.


I know some atheists do not like to hear that truth. Perhaps because it takes the steam out of their argument.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[marco]

Atheists routinely speak about the superiority of atheism ......

SOME atheists speak irritatingly loudly, yes. As you eloquently put it, so what?

Clearly being an atheist is not guarantor of enlightened behavior and the past century has more than evinced that fact.

Has it, indeed? I wonder who has forwarded the proposition that atheism guarantees enlightened behaviour. We have stopped arguing and we are singing the same song. This could become a bad habit.