i'm having a hard time with this.
what does the bible say what happens when you die?
when jesus was on the cross he said to the man that when he dies he will be with jesus in heaven.
Even Jesus did not have answers to simple questions such as ‘why some are born blind?’ The answer he gave was more confusing and God-dishonoring: “this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.” John 9:3
Hence we cannot have answers to such questions as yours.
it is our experience that love of money brings action towards accumulating abundance of wealth which ultimately convinces the owner that “i was wasting my time” which in turn motivates him to turn into philanthropy (like bill gates and co did).
this is a perfect design (designed to work independently of god) like a journey of which the first half is wasteful and the second half is fruitful, and it is to be viewed as a whole.
hence it is unlikely that jesus would say: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of god.” (mathew 19:24) verse is obviously attributed to jesus by later writers.. this means question of morality is not complicated if viewed as a whole process.
It is our experience that love of money brings action towards accumulating abundance of wealth which ultimately convinces the owner that “I was wasting my time” which in turn motivates him to turn into philanthropy (like Bill Gates and co did). This is a perfect design (designed to work independently of God) like a journey of which the first half is wasteful and the second half is fruitful, and it is to be viewed as a whole. It means question of what is right and wrong is irrelevant. Hence it is unlikely that Jesus would say: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mathew 19:24) Verse is obviously attributed to Jesus by later writers.
This means question of morality is not complicated if viewed as a whole process. Donating a house to a homeless person is right when done by an individual. But same act when done by a King is wrong because king is bound to help all the homeless persons; helping only one person would be partiality. That means viewing as a whole is the key. When viewed as a whole, even materialists do a great service because it is our experience that without them the religionists would become extreme human rights violators. It means even atheists (though working independent of God) work for the good of the humanity.
Viewing as a whole comes with experience. In such experience even the question “Does God exist?” is irrelevant. That question has not been lived, experienced. It is just a bunch of: “Yes, because …….or No, because…….” then we add stuff to support our thinking……no experience. If there is experience, that question wouldn’t be asked.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
“whether the gods love the pious because it is the pious, or whether the pious is pious only because it is loved by the gods”
Actually, there is no dilemma:
God cannot love the pious because they are pious because this would mean He loves only those of His sort which in itself is evil.
The pious and the impious attract appropriate rewards in such a way that the pious would feel inspired to continue his pious acts and the impious would feel pressurized to discontinue his impious acts.
Thus both the pious and the impious are loved by God.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
What Simon said is true. Humans painted a God which suits their purpose. After ordering the ‘annihilation of all the inhabitants’ of the city God is shown as saying: “All the silver and gold, as well as bronze and iron items, belong to the Lord. They must go into the Lord’s treasury.” (Joshua 6:19)
1) books supposedly written by god contain errors.
2) people supposedly appointed by god make human rights violations.
and god does not prevent those things from happening.
1) books supposedly written by god contain errors.
2) people supposedly appointed by god make human rights violations.
and god does not prevent those things from happening.
I take only what is beneficial, and I do not know why such carnivorous being exists
1) books supposedly written by god contain errors.
2) people supposedly appointed by god make human rights violations.
and god does not prevent those things from happening.
1) books supposedly written by god contain errors.
2) people supposedly appointed by god make human rights violations.
and god does not prevent those things from happening.
Here are some points to ponder about
1)Jesus was quoting scriptures that never existed:
Let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, ‘Out of the believer's heart shall flow rivers of living water’” (John 7:38). In the Hebrew Scriptures, living water comes from God, not from believers in God. Whatever Jesus may be quoting, it isn't in the Bible.
2)Jesus mistakes Jeremiah as Zachariah (Matt. 27:9-10; Zachariah 11:12-13)
3)Jesus himself says no one has ascended into heaven before him (John 3:13) whereas Bible says “It was by faith that Enoch was taken up to heaven without dying--"he disappeared, because God took him." (Genesis 5:21-24; Hebrew 11:5)
4)God Himself becoming so bankrupt as to ideas that He decides to murder His own son to atone the sins of His children (something that God would never do)
These are some of the evidences that speak against the book that claims to be God's
1) books supposedly written by god contain errors.
2) people supposedly appointed by god make human rights violations.
and god does not prevent those things from happening.
He has shown guidance through things such as flower and fruit-bearing trees. This is not speculative nor contradictory. When I take lesson from them and put into practice people appreciate it and I myself find it extremely beneficial.
1) books supposedly written by god contain errors.
2) people supposedly appointed by god make human rights violations.
and god does not prevent those things from happening.
I already wrote: No scriptures belong to him, hence all those accounts in the them may be historical partly or may not be historical. It was just the natural unfolding of events with no divine guidance. A divinely-guided happening would have "equal reaction" from the beneficiaries. For example,
1) if God had really brought Israelites through Red Sea, beneficiaries would never have made a calf and worshipped it after the incident.
2) if God had chosen people on earth, they would have lived as an example to other nations--look at their Kings: David, Solomon ...
3) If Jesus had really performed miracles such as resurrection, stopping the storm .... no one would have dared to crucify him
This means:
Scriptures supposedly written by God is not really His, characters in them were simply claiming they belonged to God--just like their modern-day counterparts do.
