Do logic and reason say that God is our servant?

Sep 2013
2,279
196
Canada
Do logic and reason say that God is our servant?

Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."

Even as the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve,

At the end of the day, there is no physical or real supernatural God for us to follow. If there were, then logic and reason say that if such a God wanted to be relevant to man, he would show up.

All there can be are rules and laws that we think a God would give. Men have written up many such sets of rules while lying about being inspired by God. That is basically the moral of the Moses story with his coming off the mountain, not with a God, but with rules and laws.

Man is not slaved to his laws and rules and changes them as better ones are found. We, in effect, are evolving God, defined as rules and laws, and making him better.

All people accept this except for those in religions who idol worship the older barbaric Gods, whose laws are inferior to secular law. That would include the Christian and Muslim demiurges.

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship. Faith is a way to quit using your, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason on God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes their mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

Do you serve God and the laws and rules of life, or do you expect the laws, rules of life and God to serve you?

Regards
DL
 

Blues63

Moderator
Dec 2014
14,496
12,292
Mustafa
Do logic and reason say that God is our servant?

Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."

Even as the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve,
What does logic say about this? It is said that 'God gave his only begotten son for our sins'. If so, why didn't God just forgive the sins?

At the end of the day, there is no physical or real supernatural God for us to follow. If there were, then logic and reason say that if such a God wanted to be relevant to man, he would show up.
'If' being the important conjunction here. Perhaps he couldn't care less, for after all, his plans don't seem to work very well (cf. the whole 'gave his son' thing, as [insert pronoun] hasn't really limited the incidence of sin as such).

All there can be are rules and laws that we think a God would give. Men have written up many such sets of rules while lying about being inspired by God. That is basically the moral of the Moses story with his coming off the mountain, not with a God, but with rules and laws.
And elements of the Ten Commandments are to be found in an earlier Babylonian document of a more 'secular' nature (even thought term itself is somewhat anachronistic). Many believed they were truly inspired by God. It was a common belief in the Greco-Roman world that all art originated from outside one, such as being supplied by a muse for instance.

Man is not slaved to his laws and rules and changes them as better ones are found. We, in effect, are evolving God, defined as rules and laws, and making him better.
Indeed, and it is interesting to note (if one focuses upon the Judeo-Christian texts), the nature of Jehovah/Elohim/Yahweh has evolved from those written let's say during, and after the Babylonian exile to that of the Roman period.

All people accept this except for those in religions who idol worship the older barbaric Gods, whose laws are inferior to secular law. That would include the Christian and Muslim demiurges.
As stated above, I disagree with this point.

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship. Faith is a way to quit using your, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.
Now this language is a little harsh. There are those ascribing to a faith who have the courage of their beliefs to stand up for injustice and the oppressed.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason on God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?
Literal interpretation of the more mythological and allegorical passages could be considered self delusion on a certain level, or even intellectually dishonest if one takes into account the likes of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis.

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
I feel that is a hasty generalisation, as a majority of the faithful would consider Luther's militancy as extremist.

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes their mind as it is pure idol worship.
I think it is such condescending language on both sides of the fence that raises the barrier. Take the moral high ground and stay focussed upon the claims and not the claimant.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths(1). We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.(2)
(1) I admit there are outright fraudsters within the literalist community, however we cannot disprove the existence of God, a god, or gods, nor should we employ such generalisations.

(2) And the theist says the same thing about the atheist. This is hardly constructive.

Do you serve God and the laws and rules of life, or do you expect the laws, rules of life and God to serve you?

Regards
DL
Neither.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NightSwimmer
Sep 2013
2,279
196
Canada
What does logic say about this? It is said that 'God gave his only begotten son for our sins'. If so, why didn't God just forgive the sins?
I will answer you as I would a Christian as I do not know what you are.

You have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil you make Jesus to keep your feel good get out of hell free card.

It is a lie, first and foremost because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.

You also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:

There is no way that you would teach your children to use a scapegoat to escape their just punishments and here you are doing just that.

Jesus is just a smidge less immoral than his demiurge genocidal father, and here you are trying to put him as low in moral fibre as Yahweh. Satan applauds you though as you are doing her work.

As stated above, I disagree with this point.
Good.

Show which law you had in mind and we can have a chat on it.

The bible says that justice is an eye for an eye. Which says that a punishment will be based on the severity of the sin or crime. Pick one of the bible's/god's law that exceed this, if you like, like fornication, or the stoning of unruly children to discuss. If you do not like those then choose your own where the death penalty is asked for.

Now this language is a little harsh. There are those ascribing to a faith who have the courage of their beliefs to stand up for injustice and the oppressed.
Sure, while they belong to a religion that preaches the injustice of homophobia and misogyny that oppresses half the world's population.

What injustices are they standing up against and does it balance out with their own oppression of the innocents?

Literal interpretation of the more mythological and allegorical passages could be considered self delusion on a certain level, or even intellectually dishonest if one takes into account the likes of Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis.
I agree and paint all literalist with that brush.

Take the moral high ground and stay focussed upon the claims and not the claimant.
I always do that and try to get theists to engage, but the moment morals are mentioned, they tuck tail and run.

Cowards can never be moral.

we cannot disprove the existence of God, a god, or gods,
It is to those who make a claim to prove it. It is not to the rest of us to prove they are liars.

(2) And the theist says the same thing about the atheist.
They do indeed, while hiding behind their faith shield where they can lie and be as hypocritical as they like while putting words into their vile god's mouth.

So much for the law of the excluded middle.

You either follow laws or ignore them and live by your own.

When your body says it is hungry, do you not feed it?

Regards
DL
 

Blues63

Moderator
Dec 2014
14,496
12,292
Mustafa
I will answer you as I would a Christian as I do not know what you are.
I am an unashamed atheist.

You have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil you make Jesus to keep your feel good get out of hell free card.
I haven't swallowed anything.

It is a lie, first and foremost because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.
And in this instance, illogical.

Show which law you had in mind and we can have a chat on it.
I was referring to the clause where you stated we are evolving God. Indeed, if you note the texts, God evolves throughout the corpus.

Sure, while they belong to a religion that preaches the injustice of homophobia and misogyny that oppresses half the world's population.
Not all Christian congregations are so militant, some are even quite liberal.

What injustices are they standing up against and does it balance out with their own oppression of the innocents?
You can't generalise in such a fashion. Some are militant; some are liberal.

I agree and paint all literalist with that brush.
And I don't agree with the generalisation.

I always do that and try to get theists to engage, but the moment morals are mentioned, they tuck tail and run.

Cowards can never be moral.
There you go again. Stop demonising your opponents and take the moral high ground by simply disproving their claims where applicable. This is a problem with the debate style of many atheists ~ they start from a position of contempt, and the theist spots this and is instantly offended, therefore they become hostile to you. Use reason, not insults.

It is to those who make a claim to prove it.
Agreed, the burden lies with the claimant.

It is not to the rest of us to prove they are liars.
Now are they truly liars when they believe every word they say?

They do indeed, while hiding behind their faith shield where they can lie and be as hypocritical as they like while putting words into their vile god's mouth.
There you go again.

So much for the law of the excluded middle.

You either follow laws or ignore them and live by your own.

When your body says it is hungry, do you not feed it?

Regards
DL
I neither expect the laws to serve me, and nor do I expect to serve the law. I just do what is right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldGaffer
Sep 2013
2,279
196
Canada
Of course I do. I suppose the verb 'serve' wasn't clarified. I follow laws, but I don't serve the law, if that makes any sense.
It does not FMPOV.

To follow is to serve.

I see the law as a tool to be used. You do not call the law unless you need it and that has it serving you as a good tool should.

Regards
DL.
 
Jul 2013
58,024
63,974
Nashville, TN
My favorite kind of argument two people that basically agree arguing over the minutia of their beliefs....you go, guys!