search results matching tag: story of god

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

  • 1
    Videos (8)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (14)   

Dear Satan

newtboy says...

Absolutely not at the cost of my rationality or sanity, which is the bare minimum price to believe such impossible, clearly debunked stories about Gods and demi Gods. If I was going to adopt a mythos, I would go Viking, it's so much more interesting and less self serving than any form of Christianity, which is largely nothing more than a poor mishmash of older religions/political propaganda from Emperor Constantine.


Besides, with no heaven or hell, I need no saving. He could only save me from the tortures he brings with him. (sin and hell)

You still haven't touched my original questions.

shinyblurry said:

Newtboy, would you say that you are open or interested in receiving Christ as your Savior?

King David

Mordhaus says...

Funny, but flawed it's own way.

Let me preface this commentary by saying I am not in any organized religion. I go back and forth in believing in God and also not being able to find proof he exists, basically an agnostic theist. So this is not in any way an attempt to 'prove' anything other than that I disagree with the way the video is portraying the biblical tale. I also know there are far more egregious examples than this story of God as an uncaring, flawed being with an uncertain temperament.

First, this story is one of the 'go to' stories that most atheists or anti-religion people look to for a clear example of the 'wrongness' of the bible or God. The reason is, if you don't take anything else into context, this story is massively damning! What god would call for a mass genocide out of the blue, right? Certainly not one people consider to be good!

But, if we look at the context of the bible in the Old Testament, we see that this is not wholly out of line for the character shown of God. If we take the statements of the bible as literal, then God has already shown he will destroy any threat to those he considers his 'chosen people'; even those who are/were part of that group.

In this case, the Amalekites were descendants of Esau. Esau was the brother of Jacob (later named Israel) and was supposed to inherit the blessing of his father, as well as command over the 'chosen people' of God. Esau was of rough nature and was a hunter. Once he was starving and went to Jacob, who tended the fields (sort of the Cain and Abel bit all over again), begging him for a bowl of lentil soup. Jacob told him that he would give him the bowl if Esau would pass his birthright (blessing and command) over to Jacob, since obviously Jacob was more able to care for his people than a solitary hunter. Esau agreed, but never really meant it, he was just hungry and was willing to say whatever he needed to so as to get that soup.

Jacob was dead serious though, so he took the birthright and became Israel, the leader of God's chosen. Esau was livid and swore to murder Jacob, who fled. Esau never got the birthright back, but he did sire the people who became the Amalekites, who in turn swore vengeance on Israel-ites.

This becomes important as time goes on, because basically every single time the groups encountered one another, the Israelites tried to be peaceful but the Amalekites always attacked.

By the time Saul was king, God chose to have him go and destroy the Amalekites, deeming them beyond saving. As he had told Moses during the first Amalekite attacks, he had Samuel tell Saul to blot their memory from history, wiping them out completely. Saul chose not to do this, sparing their king and some animals. Because of this, God replaced Saul with David.

So, now we come to the main part of the discussion. Like I said, this story is used quite often to show the capricious nature of God. However, like I said, it uses the story out of context. Now that we have the 'historical' description of the origin and ongoing nature of the conflict, we can put it into context.

If you are going to dissect the nature of 'God' as shown in the Old Testament, you have to look at the information given to show that nature. The bible says he is all-knowing, but it also says that he gave mankind free will. If you look on God as more of a creature running a simulation, he hopes that humanity will come to follow his rules of their own accord, even though he knows many will not. He chooses Israel and his descendants to be his 'messengers' to the other people that have chosen not to follow his rules, basically they are his missionaries that he hopes will lead his simulation to the proper conclusion.

Any group or race that tries to eradicate his messengers is a threat to his simulation, so he eventually will deal with them harshly. Sodom and Gomorrah, The Great Flood, and other examples of God deciding that he needs to protect his 'messengers' and clear off the playing board. In the case of the Amalekites, by this time period mentioned in the story, we are talking about generations of them trying to destroy the Israelites. So, God tells Samuel to tell Saul that they must be wiped from the playing board. Saul exercises his free will, therefore David enters the picture.

If you look at free will and God's choice of his messengers, as well as his protection of them, you get this story situation. By telling Saul to wipe them out, God is saying that he has tried to look the other way, but the Amalekites will never stop as long as they exist. Therefore they must be dealt with in a manner that will prevent them from rising as a people in the future and attempting harm to his messengers again.

It still doesn't paint God in a perfect light, but makes him more of a tinkerer. He keeps creating flawed inventions that choose to follow their own path and not his. The sad thing is, if you assume that he is all knowing, he knows this is going to be the end result. He creates angels and they turn on him. He creates humans and they turn on him. Then he creates Jesus, a combination of god and human, who doesn't turn on him. It is almost like he decides to create a Hero unit that can show the other simulations an easier path to winning.

Realistically and analytically, I know it doesn't make perfect sense. That is why I have my struggles with wanting to believe and then not being able to logically. If you choose to look at God as being a flawed creature (again, assuming that you believe he exists), the whole thing sort of makes more sense. In any case, we all have our own opinions and beliefs. I hope that my wordy post has explained how I try to work through mine.

The Death Of National Geographic

newtboy says...

Yes.
"Story of God" with Morgan Freeman is NGTV's big production this month.
Right now, it's border wars, followed by 4 episodes of rocky mountain law, then drain the Bermuda triangle (at least a little bit about nature), then area 51:the CIA's secret, then bigfoot:the new evidence. It's all low quality 'reality TV' and conspiracy theory these days. So sad.

ant said:

I used to subscribe and read NG back in the 80s. What about NG channel on TV? Did they get bad too?

The Death Of National Geographic

newtboy says...

Yes...and yes. The Mary story was story after story of faith healings and visions portrayed as if they were certainly real, with no science involved and no other explanations given. I had skipped that story because I don't care about religion, but went back just now and read most of it. Yuck.

The magazine is not the same. This months issue's articles....
1)the photo ARK
2) The crossing-is death an event or more of a progression
3)where death doesn't mean goodbye
4)urban parks, when you're there, civilization can feel very far away
5)Ghost Lands-The Out Of Eden Walk passes through nations haunted by their history: Armenia and Turkey
Page 4 is a big "Why I went looking for spiritual answers" 'article' hyping "Story of God" with Morgan Freeman, which has other full page ads in the same issue.
So every story has some religious connotation except the 'urban park' story, which may or may not, I haven't read it yet.
It does still have some good photography, but also a lot of bland and boring photography, and that ratio is moving in the wrong direction.
I think I won't be renewing. I'll get Popular Science or Scientific American again instead.

eric3579 said:

Anyone on the sift subscribe to Nat Geo? Is this issue as bad as it sounds?

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Destroys Bill O'Reilly

IAmTheBlurr says...

It's interesting to read a response like yours.

Do you know what "the burden of proof" means?

I realize that you're a christian so I've decided to keep this a bit short for the sake of simply providing you with a potentially new view that isn't your own. You may reject it but hopefully you will at least understand how someone else might think about this topic.

One reason that I reject the notion of designer deities is because the question becomes infinitely regress-able; it explains nothing, it helps clarify nothing, and it opens up more questions than it answers. The notion of a designer god begs the question, who or what designed the designer, then that designers designer, and most importantly, how do these gods operate, by what laws? Suggesting that a creator exists because something doesn't make sense to you isn't a valid way of forming believes if your goal is truth. The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science.

True, we do have gaps in our knowledge about systems and mechanism but those gaps should remain gaps instead of prematurely filling them with god fluff. But, you are a believer, and believers do not make critical thinkers.

I just hope that you come to understand that the answer "A creator did it" isn't an intellectually honest way of thinking.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I have a hard time believing that you understand the function of the the answer "I don't know" (or "We don't know") or how beneficial it really is.
That you don't know what the truth is, or that you believe it isn't knowable, does not preclude me from knowing what it is. It is not beneficial to be ignorant of the truth.
The human race would have been far better off if we'd spent less time making up bullshit stories about gods and spirits to explain natural phenomenon that we couldn't fathom the mechanisms of.
How do you go from "I don't know" to rejecting the existence of God? How does explaining a mechanism rule out agency? Do you understand what I meant earlier about the uniformity of nature?
"We don't know" is a far better answer to a question when we really don't know then the answer "a creator did it".
Not if it's true.
It should be highly discouraged to make up an answer when we don't know something. Teachers in American schools do this, they encourage their students to "give it their best guess" when they don't know the answer. That just perpetuates the issue. Saying "I don't know" doesn't prove or disprove anything but it does function as a stopping point in a dialog so we can know where we should investigate next. Answering with anything but "I don't know" when we don't actually know, takes investigation off course into insanity. Sticking a creator in the gaps prevents further exploration of the question, it's an abominable act which stifles critical thinking.
It's not a God of the gaps when a Creator is a better explanation for the phenomena, such as the fine tuning of the physical laws, the appearance of design in biological systems and the information in DNA. It is an abominable act to dismiss the idea of Gods existence out of hand.
I'm sorry but I don't have faith in a self creating universe just because I don't have the answer as to how it happened and suggesting that I must have faith in that if I don't accept a creator hypothesis is an exercise in a false dilemma.
You certainly have faith in a naturalistic explanation if you reject a creator. Although a purely naturalistic origin is something you cannot prove and have zero evidence for, you believe it anyway, and reject a creator outright, by your own words. That is blind faith.
>> ^IAmTheBlurr

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Destroys Bill O'Reilly

shinyblurry says...

I have a hard time believing that you understand the function of the the answer "I don't know" (or "We don't know") or how beneficial it really is.

That you don't know what the truth is, or that you believe it isn't knowable, does not preclude me from knowing what it is. It is not beneficial to be ignorant of the truth.

The human race would have been far better off if we'd spent less time making up bullshit stories about gods and spirits to explain natural phenomenon that we couldn't fathom the mechanisms of.

How do you go from "I don't know" to rejecting the existence of God? How does explaining a mechanism rule out agency? Do you understand what I meant earlier about the uniformity of nature?

"We don't know" is a far better answer to a question when we really don't know then the answer "a creator did it".

Not if it's true.

It should be highly discouraged to make up an answer when we don't know something. Teachers in American schools do this, they encourage their students to "give it their best guess" when they don't know the answer. That just perpetuates the issue. Saying "I don't know" doesn't prove or disprove anything but it does function as a stopping point in a dialog so we can know where we should investigate next. Answering with anything but "I don't know" when we don't actually know, takes investigation off course into insanity. Sticking a creator in the gaps prevents further exploration of the question, it's an abominable act which stifles critical thinking.

It's not a God of the gaps when a Creator is a better explanation for the phenomena, such as the fine tuning of the physical laws, the appearance of design in biological systems and the information in DNA. It is an abominable act to dismiss the idea of Gods existence out of hand.

I'm sorry but I don't have faith in a self creating universe just because I don't have the answer as to how it happened and suggesting that I must have faith in that if I don't accept a creator hypothesis is an exercise in a false dilemma.

You certainly have faith in a naturalistic explanation if you reject a creator. Although a purely naturalistic origin is something you cannot prove and have zero evidence for, you believe it anyway, and reject a creator outright, by your own words. That is blind faith.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr

Neil DeGrasse Tyson Destroys Bill O'Reilly

IAmTheBlurr says...

I have a hard time believing that you understand the function of the the answer "I don't know" (or "We don't know") or how beneficial it really is.

The human race would have been far better off if we'd spent less time making up bullshit stories about gods and spirits to explain natural phenomenon that we couldn't fathom the mechanisms of. "We don't know" is a far better answer to a question when we really don't know then the answer "a creator did it". It should be highly discouraged to make up an answer when we don't know something. Teachers in American schools do this, they encourage their students to "give it their best guess" when they don't know the answer. That just perpetuates the issue. Saying "I don't know" doesn't prove or disprove anything but it does function as a stopping point in a dialog so we can know where we should investigate next. Answering with anything but "I don't know" when we don't actually know, takes investigation off course into insanity. Sticking a creator in the gaps prevents further exploration of the question, it's an abominable act which stifles critical thinking.

I'm sorry but I don't have faith in a self creating universe just because I don't have the answer as to how it happened and suggesting that I must have faith in that if I don't accept a creator hypothesis is an exercise in a false dilemma.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You can describe all the mechanisms of reality, but in the end, you still have faith in a self-creating Universe. You haven't explained why there is uniformity in nature, but funnily enough, it was the Christian belief of Christian scientists that God created a orderly Universe based on laws that science had the idea that it could suss out those laws by investigating secondary causes. This is why Kepler said he felt like he was thinking Gods thoughts after him. But to explain anything you must explain the first thought. "I don't know" is not an argument against a Creator, nor is explaining the tides physical operation evidence that His hand isn't pulling all the strings.

Case for a Creator: Universe is fine tuned

westy says...

>> ^shinyblurry:

Ask yourself whether you believe there isn't a God because its true or because you want it to be true.
>> ^westy:
DUMB SHIT ALERT .
obviously if the universe was different we most probably would not exist and then we would not be able to comment on how its not suited to us so over an infinite amount of time we are only going to be able to say Oh look its so fine tuned when the occurance happens that it matches up with something that allows for us to come into existence.
Its to be noted that most the universe as it is appears not to be suited to human life ( and life in general) I mean on cosmic scale earth has only been suitable for humans for a blip and we are likely to get totally wiped out by any of a thousand things if not ourselfs.
This is a bit like having sum one win the lottery and then claim the odds of them winning were 100% because they won or that it was pre determined because it was so unlikely for them to win but they did so it must have been an outside force that selected them.
And then if you are going to claim that this is evidence for god then you have to say what are the odds for a god to be created ? or for a god to always exist ? or what creates a god ? given that we have hundreds of religions that are not followed by anyone really any more who is to say which religion has the correct version of god ? why would a made up story of god thats not Evan based on science be true ?
If you are going down this line of resoining then you would come to the conclusion that we are living within a computer simulation or that an Alain race created us WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY before you could come to a god conclusion But there is no solid evidence to suggest any of the above its just interesting philosophy but pure speculation not anything to build any desissoin making of.
ahaha at the end "there is really only one problem with it there is no evidence that it is true" (refuring to multiple universe thery) I don't get how he can say that about one thing and then not apply it to the other.



I don't have a preference its about whats evident and there is no evidence for god so im not going to believe in it, in the same way i don,t believe in unicorns or ghosts.

Case for a Creator: Universe is fine tuned

shinyblurry says...

Ask yourself whether you believe there isn't a God because its true or because you want it to be true.

>> ^westy:
DUMB SHIT ALERT .
obviously if the universe was different we most probably would not exist and then we would not be able to comment on how its not suited to us so over an infinite amount of time we are only going to be able to say Oh look its so fine tuned when the occurance happens that it matches up with something that allows for us to come into existence.
Its to be noted that most the universe as it is appears not to be suited to human life ( and life in general) I mean on cosmic scale earth has only been suitable for humans for a blip and we are likely to get totally wiped out by any of a thousand things if not ourselfs.
This is a bit like having sum one win the lottery and then claim the odds of them winning were 100% because they won or that it was pre determined because it was so unlikely for them to win but they did so it must have been an outside force that selected them.
And then if you are going to claim that this is evidence for god then you have to say what are the odds for a god to be created ? or for a god to always exist ? or what creates a god ? given that we have hundreds of religions that are not followed by anyone really any more who is to say which religion has the correct version of god ? why would a made up story of god thats not Evan based on science be true ?
If you are going down this line of resoining then you would come to the conclusion that we are living within a computer simulation or that an Alain race created us WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY before you could come to a god conclusion But there is no solid evidence to suggest any of the above its just interesting philosophy but pure speculation not anything to build any desissoin making of.
ahaha at the end "there is really only one problem with it there is no evidence that it is true" (refuring to multiple universe thery) I don't get how he can say that about one thing and then not apply it to the other.

Case for a Creator: Universe is fine tuned

westy says...

DUMB SHIT ALERT .

obviously if the universe was different we most probably would not exist and then we would not be able to comment on how its not suited to us so over an infinite amount of time we are only going to be able to say Oh look its so fine tuned when the occurance happens that it matches up with something that allows for us to come into existence.

Its to be noted that most the universe as it is appears not to be suited to human life ( and life in general) I mean on cosmic scale earth has only been suitable for humans for a blip and we are likely to get totally wiped out by any of a thousand things if not ourselfs.

This is a bit like having sum one win the lottery and then claim the odds of them winning were 100% because they won or that it was pre determined because it was so unlikely for them to win but they did so it must have been an outside force that selected them.

And then if you are going to claim that this is evidence for god then you have to say what are the odds for a god to be created ? or for a god to always exist ? or what creates a god ? given that we have hundreds of religions that are not followed by anyone really any more who is to say which religion has the correct version of god ? why would a made up story of god thats not Evan based on science be true ?

If you are going down this line of resoining then you would come to the conclusion that we are living within a computer simulation or that an Alain race created us WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY before you could come to a god conclusion But there is no solid evidence to suggest any of the above its just interesting philosophy but pure speculation not anything to build any desissoin making of.

ahaha at the end "there is really only one problem with it there is no evidence that it is true" (refuring to multiple universe thery) I don't get how he can say that about one thing and then not apply it to the other.

BBC - The Link - Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor

honkeytonk73 says...

I don't believe it. It doesn't mesh up with the whole Adam and Eve story which God tells us is TRUE per the Bible. Heck. The 10 Commandments were written on stone rather than a digital storage device. 6000 years ago such highly efficient devices didn't exist... and God simply wanted to make sure he used the highest technological medium for the day. Stone and Chisel.


Why such a highly impractical. Highly immobile. Prone to shattering. Difficult to reproduce. Material? Well... to spread his word to the global masses in as SLOW and UNRELIABLE a method as possible via word of mouth. Through illiterate sheepherders who were likely more interested in populating their flock of 'sex sheep' than increasing the religious flock. All to support some invisible dude in the sky with a resurrected zombie son (who is supposedly God himself), who unbelievably claims to walk on water. Any wise man would have simply used a fucking raft to cross a damn body of water. But. He just had to show off didn't he?! The fucker.

If Religions Were Real - Elisha, Bears, Metal, and Gore

Ban Textbook for Dismissing Creationism as Biblical Myth?

eatbolt says...

If they were describing the Egyptian creation story of the Earth rising out the primordial chaos in the same book, wouldn't it be fair to call it a myth? Or should they temper the the language by saying, "The chaotic waters, called Nu, giving rise to the holy mound that the Earth eventually rose out of is one possible explanation for genetics, biology, and paleontology, but it's up to the reader to decide." It's a called a creation myth exactly the same way all other stories involving gods creating the world are called myths.

There has to be some standard of education. Quality is very important to assure that all children are receiving at least some semblance of what we call truth at that time. Calling things as they are is not a bias. It's just the truth. Get over it.

Proving the bible is repulsive

v1k1n6 says...

The arguments are out of context and that combined with the perception not to tell the whole story of God's redemptive plan can absolutely make the Bible look evil.

Honestly you could make it look like the Bible tells us it is OK to pick people off from the roof tops with a rifle if you took the right verses out of context.

*downvote for me

  • 1


Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon