Andrew Louis commented about this "proof" that God exists on offer over at Sinner Ministries. Here's a quick comment from me. Check out the "proof" first though. It's short, and kind of amazing.... (n.b. choose objective laws, etc. as it saves time).
Stephen wrote: Checked out the "proof". So it runs: if you believe in objective laws of logic and maths and science and moral truths (that are immaterial, by which author means not made out of material stuff), you must believe in God because, er, they couldn't exist if God did not.
Clearly, the author really thinks he's got a "proof". But it is shot full of holes.
First, where's the argument that objective laws of logic, etc. require the existence of God? There isn't one. Just the assertion that they do. Yet, amazingly, this is offered as the "proof".
The author's chutzpah is kind of breath-taking. Only a religious zealot would dare offer this as a "proof" with a straight face.
Note that, even if the laws of logic DID require the existence of some sort of deity to underpin them, we could still ask, why this particular God - the Judeo-Christian God? Particularly as there's overwhelming evidence that there is no such being (see my "God of Eth").
(P.S. notice the quote "He who hates correction is stupid" from Proverbs 12.1 - featured at the bottom of a website that offers a "proof" of God's existence, but that provides no way to respond or, indeed, correct, the egregious errors contained therein. The irony is lost on these guys, I guess...)
Stephen wrote: Checked out the "proof". So it runs: if you believe in objective laws of logic and maths and science and moral truths (that are immaterial, by which author means not made out of material stuff), you must believe in God because, er, they couldn't exist if God did not.
Clearly, the author really thinks he's got a "proof". But it is shot full of holes.
First, where's the argument that objective laws of logic, etc. require the existence of God? There isn't one. Just the assertion that they do. Yet, amazingly, this is offered as the "proof".
The author's chutzpah is kind of breath-taking. Only a religious zealot would dare offer this as a "proof" with a straight face.
Note that, even if the laws of logic DID require the existence of some sort of deity to underpin them, we could still ask, why this particular God - the Judeo-Christian God? Particularly as there's overwhelming evidence that there is no such being (see my "God of Eth").
(P.S. notice the quote "He who hates correction is stupid" from Proverbs 12.1 - featured at the bottom of a website that offers a "proof" of God's existence, but that provides no way to respond or, indeed, correct, the egregious errors contained therein. The irony is lost on these guys, I guess...)
Comments
Quick answer, just like the laws of logic, God is not made of anything.
Cheers,
Sye
Knew it! That explains alot actually.
Cheers,
Sye
Can we ever know the true nature of your "god", Sye?
By the impossibility of the contrary. No other worldview can account for universal, abstract, invariants such as the laws of logic.
”Also, how do you know that your 'objective revelation' was not just a delusion, or some other purely natural mental abberation?”
Because God has made His revealtion in such a way that we can be certain of the truth of it.
”Even if we suppose, just for the sake of argument, that you did receive some sort of 'revelation', how can you be sure that you have not just been deceived by some evil demon? How would you ever know the difference?”
See previous answer.
”How can you be sure that you are not just a 'brain in a vat', with all of your experiences - including your 'objective revelation' - being merely illusions?”
See previous answer.
By the way, how can you be certain that YOU are not a brain in a vat? How can you be certain of anything for that matter?
”Apart from your 'objective revelation' and your 'laws of logic require God to exist' arguments, do you have any other arguments to suggest that God exists?”
Lots, but I don’t use them.
Cheers,
Sye
For starters, YOU said that Hindus do not believe in revelation and thus cannot account for logic, and YOU said that if you cannot account for logic you cannot use it, and YOU said that you cannot account for logic without the christian god, since the christian god was not even defined before christianity, no peoples could have accounted for logic before christianity appeared, by your own accord, they could not use it ...
Nope, because He has revealed it to all of us.
And you assume this has been revealed to you because you assume you cannot justify logic without this revelation, so you justify logic by revelation because it has been revealed to you, which is hopelessly circular.
Bizarro-Sye
*sigh* ... Prove it please. You keep asserting that God revealed stuff to all of us.
...Where does it say that? In the Bible.
...Why should we trust the Bible? Coz God wrote it.
...How do we know God exists? Coz God revealed himself to all of us.
...Where does it say that? In the Bible.
...Why should we trust the Bible? Coz God wrote it.
...How do we know God exists? Coz God revealed himself to all of us.
...Where does it say that? In the Bible.
...Why should we trust the Bible? Coz God wrote it.
...How do we know God exists? Coz God revealed himself to all of us.
et cetera.
===========
Beers,
Anti-Sye
Yip.
” Then there's no reason for me to believe your "god" actually exists.”
I would suggest that you rethink that strategy before you die.
”You may claim the laws of logic (by my logic) do not exist then”
Huh? I believe that the laws of logic do exist, just that you cannot account for their existence.
”but we can see their practical effects, and use them to practical ends - something that your "god" is mysteriously missing.”
Um, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart from God?
”Your "god" can be used as a sham for oppression, and that's about it.”
Indeed, people abuse philosophies, but tell me, is oppression, absolutely morally wrong?
Cheers,
Sye
Yip.
” Then there's no reason for me to believe your "god" actually exists.”
I would suggest that you rethink that strategy before you die.
”You may claim the laws of logic (by my logic) do not exist then”
Huh? I believe that the laws of logic do exist, just that you cannot account for their existence.
”but we can see their practical effects, and use them to practical ends - something that your "god" is mysteriously missing.”
Um, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart from God?
”Your "god" can be used as a sham for oppression, and that's about it.”
Indeed, people abuse philosophies, but tell me, is oppression, absolutely morally wrong?
Cheers,
Sye
Yip.
” Then there's no reason for me to believe your "god" actually exists.”
I would suggest that you rethink that strategy before you die.
”You may claim the laws of logic (by my logic) do not exist then”
Huh? I believe that the laws of logic do exist, just that you cannot account for their existence.
”but we can see their practical effects, and use them to practical ends - something that your "god" is mysteriously missing.”
Um, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart from God?
”Your "god" can be used as a sham for oppression, and that's about it.”
Indeed, people abuse philosophies, but tell me, is oppression, absolutely morally wrong?
Cheers,
Sye
*sigh* ... Prove it please. You keep asserting that God revealed stuff to all of us.
...Where does it say that? In the Bible.
...Why should we trust the Bible? Coz God wrote it.
...How do we know God exists? Coz God revealed himself to all of us.
...Where does it say that? In the Bible.
...Why should we trust the Bible? Coz God wrote it.
...How do we know God exists? Coz God revealed himself to all of us.
...Where does it say that? In the Bible.
...Why should we trust the Bible? Coz God wrote it.
...How do we know God exists? Coz God revealed himself to all of us.
et cetera.
===========
Beers,
Anti-Sye
Yip.
” Then there's no reason for me to believe your "god" actually exists.”
I would suggest that you rethink that strategy before you die.
”You may claim the laws of logic (by my logic) do not exist then”
Huh? I believe that the laws of logic do exist, just that you cannot account for their existence.
”but we can see their practical effects, and use them to practical ends - something that your "god" is mysteriously missing.”
Um, how do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic apart from God?
”Your "god" can be used as a sham for oppression, and that's about it.”
Indeed, people abuse philosophies, but tell me, is oppression, absolutely morally wrong?
Cheers,
Sye
You asked for proofs and I responded by giving you facts with supporting evidence, or the complete lack of evidence, as the case may be, because that's all one can do. If you dispute my facts then you can provide the evidence that counters them.
I won’t argue about logic because we disagree on the very nature of logic, which means we disagree on what logic is.
Just to clarify one point: ‘God created all scientific laws and mathematics is an abstract idea, and that’s all it can be’, because there is no evidence or proof to support it, except that it’s part of your worldview.
If I say something is unknown then obviously I’m not trying to prove that it is unknown if I say ‘I don’t know.’ There are lots of things that we don’t know, which therefore, by that very logic, cannot be proven known or unknown; they can only be speculated about.
Unlike you Sye, I admit that there are lots of things that I don’t know and that includes the origin of mathematics and the laws of nature. I don’t know where they come from. But at least my worldview in this respect is consistent whereas yours is not (see below).
I’ve pointed out twice already that there is no reference in the Bible to mathematics and science, but more than that, the Bible, if taken literally, is seriously incompatible with science. So your worldview that you’re so proud of is inherently contradictory.
Regards, Paul.
So then it should be quite easy for you to tear through the idea of Systemic Truth and prove it wrong. But first realize that to do so you must prove that your system of truth/logic is valid.
Why is that so difficult for you Sye? If you can’t, just say so.
The validity of your claim hangs upon your ability to do that.
Sye said: "It is not a matter of needing to be right. I do this because, among other things, I am commanded by God to ‘contend for the faith,’ (Jude 1:3)"
Celtic Chimp said: "Sye will simlpy repeat himself ad-nauseam. He thinks he has the Atheist community stumped with his impervious "Goddidit" argument. I hope you have a lot of patience....."
===================
Does... anyone seriously believe Sye actually wants a debate?
Yes they do. You fail at basic research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavan
Predictable of you, Sye.
=================
Sye continues: "It's just stuff made up by the 'sages of old,' and sorry, but I don't believe in made up gods."
Yes you do. You just don't realize it and don't want to. Apparently the texts of shepherds and old men surpass all known history and science?
===============
And yes, Holy Cow was made up. But at least it proved your argument reduces to three things:
-Circular Justification
-Appeal from Authority
-Repeating the same damn thing over and over and over and over again with no bloody justification and when asked to provide justification you ignore the question.
And I said that there IS reference to universal, abstract, invariants, and ‘fixed laws, which nicely encompasses the laws of science, math, logic etc.
You on the other hand use these laws, without any justification for them whatsoever. You use them on blind faith.
” but more than that, the Bible, if taken literally, is seriously incompatible with science.”
1. That is why you do exegisis to determine what is literal and what is poetic, or figurative.
2. Science would be impossible if the Bible were not true, as without God, one cannot account for the validity of induction, the very foundation of all of science.
3. What standard of logic are you using to determine that the Bible is ‘seriously incompatible with science, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to the Bible?
”So your worldview that you’re so proud of is inherently contradictory.”
Naturally I disagree, but Paul, not that you will answer, but why are contradictions not allowed in your worldview?
Cheers,
Sye
For starters, YOU said that Hindus do not believe in revelation [you were wrong] and thus cannot account for logic, and YOU said that if you cannot account for logic you cannot use it, and YOU said that you cannot account for logic without the christian god, since the christian god was not even defined before christianity, no peoples could have accounted for logic before christianity appeared, by your own accord, they could not use it ...
Nope, because He has revealed it to all of us.
And you assume this has been revealed to you because you assume you cannot justify logic without this revelation, so you justify logic by revelation because it has been revealed to you, which is hopelessly circular.
Bizarro-Sye
Sorry, but as much as you may think so, wikipedia is not authoritative.
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. Next time you bump into your Hindu 'friend,' and he tells you that "All is one," show him that wiki page :-D
Reaaaaally. (Psssssst Old Testament).
Cheers,
Sye
your knowledge of eastern religion is pathetic. Eastern religion is not pantheistic. You want pantheism, read Spinoza.
You have no idea what your talking about.
And by the way:
prove, "that absolute truth exists" is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
Cheers,
Andy
Greeks did not use the old testament to justify logic, nor did the hindus, nor many of those peoples who used logic before christianity. So, since YOU said you cannot use logic without justifying it, and that you cannot justify it without the christian/abrahamic god, they could not have used it. Nor could people of today who do not believe in the christian god.
Nope, because He has revealed it to all of us.
And you assume this has been revealed to you because you assume you cannot justify logic without this revelation, so you justify logic by revelation because it has been revealed to you, which is hopelessly circular.
Bizarro-Sye
Reaaaaaaaly. Psssssst Muslims share the old testament with christians: They can justify logic without a christian worldview.
Another anti-Sye
What type of drugs do you actually take Andrew?
Cheers,
Sye
Just cut to the chase; Please tell me how you, or any other worlview accounts for universal, abstract invariant laws. Telling me that others do is hardly accounting for them.
Cheers,
Sye
And you assume this has been revealed to you because you assume you cannot justify logic without this revelation, so you justify logic by revelation because it has been revealed to you, which is hopelessly circular.
Bizarro-Sye
It accounts for non-exclusivity to the christian worldview.
Another anti-Sye
Premise 2. Sye has repeatedly refused to argue in a fashion that is consistent with his own view of logic
Conclusion: Sye has serious mental problems which need resolved with a psychotherapist and a course in logic
"By the impossibility of the contrary. No other worldview can account for universal, abstract, invariants such as the laws of logic."
Prove it, please. I would accept the proof of this statement even in your own worldview. You have been totally unable to reproduce this though, so that makes your statement absurd.
You suggest I "rethink my strategy before I die." This, of course, is a non sequitur, like 99% of what you've argued so far. I'm convinced that you are impossible to converse with logically and intelligently, so I'm giving up. That does not mean you win; on the contrary, that only means you've (once again) committed the fallacy of argumentum ad nauseum. Perhaps in the future, we can bring some at least pseudo-logical Christians to the website in order to debate them - we've never encountered that before.
With that, I must bid thee adieu, for there is no sense in you.
Don't you people find it at all odd that no one has answered that question yet?
Just think about that.
Cheers,
Sye
Don't you find it odd?
Think about it.
Bizarro-Sye
Don't you people find it at all odd that he could not prove his point yet?
Just think about that.
Beers,
Another anti-Sye
don't you find it at all odd that I've already given you a proof of my world view and you have yet to be able to refute it with 2 basic questions:
Prove, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
yes, that is odd indeed.
What you fail to realise, Andrew, is that even if you could prove your worldview, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION it is only true in the system to which you subscribe. Since BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION, your worldview is NOT ABSOLUTELY TRUE, it might not be true!
Cheers,
Sye
what form of logic do you use to evaluate my claim, and how does that logic necessaraly apply to me.
If that system of logic is absolute, then provide the necessary proof that establishes that claim by:
Proving, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
Even if you disagree with everything I have said, how do you people account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to your worldview?
Cheers,
Sye
Prove otherwise Sye.
You assume this has been revealed to you because you assume you cannot justify logic without this revelation, so you justify logic by revelation because it has been revealed to you, which is hopelessly circular.
Bizarro-Sye
Um, Andrew, is it absolutely true that yours is the only system, or is it systemically true? And if yours is the only system, doesn't that MAKE any truth within that system absolutely true???
Cheers,
Sye
what form of logic do you use to evaluate my claim, and how does that logic necessaraly apply to me.
If that system of logic is absolute, then provide the necessary proof that establishes that claim by:
Proving, "that absolute truth exists is a proposition and give an example of an absolute truth and how it is not systemic.
Don't you find it odd that you could not prove that yet?
Even if you disagree with everything I have said, how do you Sye account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic exclusively according to your worldview?
Another anti-Sye
Oh crap. You don't even know the difference between the STEREOTYPES of Hinduism and Buddhism. *facepalm* You're. An idiot.
===================
Sure, Wikipedia isn't authoritative, but most of its SOURCES are. It has way more authors than the Bible. Besides, stop resorting to argument from authority!
BESIDES. You still have not proven it has to be the Christian God, instead of any other universal abstract unchanging god that has 'revealed' itself.
Just save us the trouble. What aspect of your God separates him from all other possible gods? (Revelation, Authority, Abstract, Unchanging, and Universal we've already all shown to be false.)
You claim to know the nature of God, and assert that he has revealed it to all of us “in such a way that we can be certain of its truth.” You assert that “God is all good, and all powerful and has a morally sufficient reason for the evil in this world, known at least, to Him.” You say you know this because it is objectively true, by which you mean “True, apart from personal opinion.”
Of course, you don’t provide any evidence for these statements, because you can’t. To quote you back at yourself, “It's just stuff made up by the 'sages of old,' and sorry, but I don't believe in made up gods.”
You are very fond of asking other people questions, but never answer any yourself except by repetitive circular arguments which don’t meet Popper’s test of being falsifiable. And you claim to understand logic!
When Andrew said: “You seem to be really good at refuting everyone else here” he was being unduly charitable.
Bloody hell. We've given you several examples, all of which you have either ignored or have not disproved. (esp. Andrew's Systemic Logic)
===============
Chess rules, universal to chess, abstract, and unchanging, are formed by humans, not God.
==================
Human ingenuity means we can observe the universe and derive laws from them. Contingent to the experiments, maybe, but your transcendental argument is contingent to the Christian God. (why the Christian one you yet have not shown)
The more universal our experiments get, the more universal our results. Is the phase of the universe not an experiment of the universal laws? This way, the laws of the universe are contingent on the universe.
=================
Systemic truths? Andrew already explained. Proof for truth.
And you and your equivocation of the word 'absolute'... Systemic means proof is needed for the truth. So absolute (universal) truths that can be proven would be ENCOMPASSED by Systemic truths.
Just because Systemic is not the same as Absolute, Systemic is NOT the antonym of Absolute. It encompasses it.
Due to impossibility of the contrary!
...or due to the laziness on Sye's part to show it HAS to exclusively be the Christian God, cannot be any other god, cannot be systemic truths, cannot be humans just making up the idea that everything IS universal, abstract, invariant, or cannot be that logic doesn't need a creator.
==============
Beers,
The Real Anti-Sye (Won't you please shut... I mean stand up?)
"Chess rules, universal to chess, abstract, and unchanging, are formed by humans, not God."
PARTICULAR TO CHESS, dummy. Not only that PARTICULAR to a specific type of chess!!! They ain't all the same, and they have changed. ANd how do you know they won't change again?!? That wasn't even a nice try.
You really don't have a clue do you? Step away from Andrew's bong.
Cheers,
Sye
P.S. Your knowledge of world religions is pathetic too.
Look, I think that I have done a pretty good job over the last couple of days answering all kinds of questions, but the questions I ask don't get answered, except for the ridiculous 'universal rules of chess' stab.
You do not accept the evidence I present, the Word of God, because of your presupposition that it is invalid. The only way we can come to any resolution is to start from the ground up. All I want to do is compare our presuppositions and see whose comport with reality. You may disagree with how I account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, but how are we supposed to compare claims if none of you will submit yours?
Cheers,
Sye
Bizarro-Sye (not to be mistaken for The Real Anti-Sye)
I posted the same comment twice. I didn't realise we had gone to another page.
Sye has already responded to it.
Regards, Paul.
I didn't think I would answer it either.
Regards, Paul.
Your assessment of that involves a logical chain of appeals; it is thereby circular, using the thing aimed to be proved.
"Um no, you are begging the question by assuming that God could not reveal some things to us, I such a way that we can be certain of them."
God certainly *could* reveal something to us, if he existed (he might also exist, and not 'reveal' anything, as in Deism). I just don't know of any cases of revelation. Naturally, I take it you are aware that the notion that the bible is god's revelation is extremely contentious, and not suitable for use in any argument you might want to make here.
If you mean instead something like mystical revelation, then this is not an argument. But the moment you formulate an argument, you are using the thing you are trying to prove.
"And how would you know whether those existing features are themselves rational?"
It is assumed (as it must be). You don't seem to see the intractibility of the logical situation here: you *cannot* use logic to argue for logic in any argumentatively useful way.
"By what standard of logic would an argument that utilizes anything that it aims to show be fallacious, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to those arguments?"
Technically, a circular argument is not actually invalid (you can have quite valid circular arguments). Its just argumentatively useless - it has no persuasive force. It is considered a fallacy, but it is only loosely so.
If you have been paying attention, you already know how to answer the other questions you posed.
PS - Stephen, you need to set up a forums mate. The format of the comments to blog posts is far from optimal for 250 posts!! Should be some free services around?
(1st.) Theory; - a GUESS
and you are going to tell me that,(based) on your own scientific facts the big bang THEORY could not have happened. It is all based on Flawed math, and there has to be Luck added to the mix to get it to happen the way the THEORY states.
2nd)where in nature is there an example of Organized order in a way it replicates itself (proving a entity with a thinking mind had to put the organization into nature.
3rd) When one looks at a strand of DNA it has alphabetized Chains in it's make up, 26 to be exact. So if you match 1=A, 2=B etc... ending with Z=26 you are left with the fact that A THINKING ENTITY created DNA, there is no example of this in nature anywhere, via their own scientific rules. Ok, I know you are saying, 100,000 years ago when man was created there was only 23 letters in the alphabet thus dis proving the whole theory, not so fast. God knew that by the time we advanced mentally, their would be 26 letters in our alphabet, we added 3 since. So why waste his time putting 23 in there when we didn't have the IQ to know it was even there.. I can go on, and On subject after subject, GOD is real, he is there accept the facts and fear your lord. He will forgive your arrogance,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAURq_ouYLc
But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; 2 with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 “Ananias,” Peter asked, “why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us[a] but to God!” 5 Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it. 6 The young men came and wrapped up his body,[b] then carried him out and buried him.
7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price.” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things. Acts 5:1-11
Millions of human beings have been slaughtered by the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth over the last 2,000 years: pagans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Indigenous Peoples, and other Christians. During the Crusades the streets of the city of Jerusalem flowed ankle deep with the blood of Muslim and Jewish men, women, and children. Tens of thousands of Jews were periodically and routinely slaughtered in European cities, triggered by the anti-Semitic diatribes of priests and pastors. One third of the population of Germany was wiped out during the Thirty Years War, all in the name of Jesus Christ, from both sides. Millions of Indigenous peoples were brutally forced to convert to the "True Faith" or die horrific deaths by "men of God", the inheritors of the powers of the Office of the Keys, given to them by Jesus himself moments before his Ascension into Heaven
Now, I have a question for you, my Christian friend: Just where was the Holy Spirit during this 2,000 year Blood Bath? Why don't we read accounts of entire Christian armies being struck dead on their horses by the Christian God due to their intent to slaughter thousands of non-combatant men, women and children? Why don't we read of officials of the Inquisition being struck down by the Christian God as they attempt to light the kindling at the bottom of a stake to which is bound a terrified Jewish man or woman?
Dear orthodox/conservative Christians, are you really going to have the gall, the audacity, to once again recite to me the idiotic statement, "God's ways are not our ways"...when your all-mighty, all-powerful, all-knowing God has allowed millions if not billions of human beings to suffer excruciating deaths for nothing more than thought crimes...but...will not hesitate for a second to strike down deader than a door nail, any Christian who holds back on this year's Tithing Pledge???
If there is any proof that your Religion is an invention of men, and not of a god, this is it!
But a man named Ananias, with the consent of his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property; 2 with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 “Ananias,” Peter asked, “why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not lie to us[a] but to God!” 5 Now when Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard of it. 6 The young men came and wrapped up his body,[b] then carried him out and buried him.
7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you and your husband sold the land for such and such a price.” And she said, “Yes, that was the price.” 9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things. Acts 5:1-11
Millions of human beings have been slaughtered by the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth over the last 2,000 years: pagans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Indigenous Peoples, and other Christians. During the Crusades the streets of the city of Jerusalem flowed ankle deep with the blood of Muslim and Jewish men, women, and children. Tens of thousands of Jews were periodically and routinely slaughtered in European cities, triggered by the anti-Semitic diatribes of priests and pastors. One third of the population of Germany was wiped out during the Thirty Years War, all in the name of Jesus Christ, from both sides. Millions of Indigenous peoples were brutally forced to convert to the "True Faith" or die horrific deaths by "men of God", the inheritors of the powers of the Office of the Keys, given to them by Jesus himself moments before his Ascension into Heaven
Now, I have a question for you, my Christian friend: Just where was the Holy Spirit during this 2,000 year Blood Bath? Why don't we read accounts of entire Christian armies being struck dead on their horses by the Christian God due to their intent to slaughter thousands of non-combatant men, women and children? Why don't we read of officials of the Inquisition being struck down by the Christian God as they attempt to light the kindling at the bottom of a stake to which is bound a terrified Jewish man or woman?
Dear orthodox/conservative Christians, are you really going to have the gall, the audacity, to once again recite to me the idiotic statement, "God's ways are not our ways"...when your all-mighty, all-powerful, all-knowing God has allowed millions if not billions of human beings to suffer excruciating deaths for nothing more than thought crimes...but...will not hesitate for a second to strike down deader than a door nail, any Christian who holds back on this year's Tithing Pledge???
If there is any proof that your Religion is an invention of men, and not of a god, this is it!