• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Absentee Father

No. But what are my sources?

You got any problem with the National Academy of Sciences? Francis Collins? James Tour?


I don't just give you anyone as my reference.

I feel that you do. Pretty much all the time. And then ignore other principles of physics that state things such as the Big Bang could happen without a creator. It's the same ol' picking and choosing to engineer a conclusion.
 
I feel that you do. Pretty much all the time. And then ignore other principles of physics that state things such as the Big Bang could happen without a creator. It's the same ol' picking and choosing to engineer a conclusion.

Never mind trying to shift and deflect!


Will you use Lenny Flank as an authority on science? Evolution? Cosmology?
 
I feel that you do. Pretty much all the time. And then ignore other principles of physics that state things such as the Big Bang could happen without a creator. It's the same ol' picking and choosing to engineer a conclusion.

Well, we aren't talking about how you feel!

You feel I shouldn't criticise and bring up the "quality" of reference Calamity had brought to the table. The way you feel is obviously biased.
You can't use "feel." Not when you're in a serious discussion!

You among those who think The NAS is wrong in its statement?
 
You feel I shouldn't criticise and bring up the "quality" of reference Calamity had brought to the table.

It's just that you criticizing anyone for the quality of their reference is pretty ironic given the sources you bring to the table to base your arguments off of.
 
:lol:

He really likes Mars Attack "Ack, ack, ack-ack"! :lamo

I can't get over that.....what was he thinking? "Ack, ack, ack-ack" :mrgreen:

Maybe he saw an Aflak commercial?
 
It's just that you criticizing anyone for the quality of their reference is pretty ironic given the sources you bring to the table to base your arguments off of.

Given my sources? The National Academy of Sciences?

For someone who claims to have a degree in physics - I find your statement quite interesting.
Seems like you don't know exactly what the National Academy of Sciences, is. You don't know, do you?

Hmmmmm......


You want to ask somebody else about that? The one really with the phd in physics? Go ahead.
 
Last edited:
Maybe he saw an Aflak commercial?

No. He must be thinking he's a crow. Evolution - I think he's bonded somehow with birds.....crows. :mrgreen:
 
If there are multiple paths to heaven, some without Jesus, I feel like it kind of makes what he allegedly did kind of pointless.

Not if the inclusivist position is correct.

http://www.theopedia.com/inclusivism
"Inclusivism posits that even though the work of Christ is the only means of salvation, it does not follow that explicit knowledge of Christ is necessary in order for one to be saved. In contrast to pluralism, inclusivism agrees with exclusivism in affirming the particularity of salvation in Jesus Christ. But unlike exclusivism, inclusivism holds that an implicit faith response to general revelation can be salvific. God expects from man a response proportional to the light given. Saving faith is not characterized so much by its cognitive content as it is by its reverent quality."

In layman's terms, this position claims that without Christ, no one would have been saved. But that salvation does not necessarily rely on perfect knowledge of and acceptance of Christ's sacrifice.

It's more like there being only one path, but you don't necessarily even realize you are on it.

Perhaps this quote from Billy Graham (on the same page linked to above) says it best:
Billy Graham said:
And that's what God is doing today. He's calling people out of the world for His name; whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world; they are members of the Body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don't have and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they're going to be with us in heaven.
 
Last edited:
You're right, it's a VERY progressive view. Most Christians believe that the only path to heaven is through the father. If there are multiple paths to heaven, some without Jesus, I feel like it kind of makes what he allegedly did kind of pointless. I am glad that it's becoming more and more insane to believe in a literal hell, and honestly anyone who doesn't believe in a literal hell isn't really part of the contradiction mentioned in the OP.
I agree. I feel that hell is in our minds, but there is a road out of it.
 
Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
You're right, it's a VERY progressive view. Most Christians believe that the only path to heaven is through the father. If there are multiple paths to heaven, some without Jesus, I feel like it kind of makes what he allegedly did kind of pointless. I am glad that it's becoming more and more insane to believe in a literal hell, and honestly anyone who doesn't believe in a literal hell isn't really part of the contradiction mentioned in the OP.

To a Christian, there's only one path to heaven - through Christ.

Debating what exactly hell is, is fruitless. No one really knows. What we do know is that whatever hell is -whether literally or not - it's unpleasant. It's not where anyone would want to be.
Of course we know it is unpleasant (whether it's literally a specific location/place, or a state of being) - because it's the penalty for those who rejected God.

I don't argue with anyone what hell is, much the same way that I don't debate about what rapture exactly means.
 
Called a bald-faced liar a liar is not name calling. If you're ashamed of the title liar you should stop making things up and manipulating the truth. The world does not revolve around you. Not every human on the planet is going to come to the same conclusion about god as you.

What's to be ashamed of? I know it's not true. people who follow this thread - THINKING people - know it's not true!

If there's anyone who tries to manipulate the truth - that would be you!
You approved someone like Lenny Flank - trying to pass him off as an "authoritative" reference! :lol:

I suppose, anyone will do.....as long as they're saying what you wanna hear.
 
Correction: Evolution disproves Genesis. It doesn't touch upon creationism.

Not really.

It disproves a certain way of reading Genesis which became fashionable around the turn of the century and remains popular only within pockets of Evangelical Fundamentalism, primarily in the southern USA.

It doesn't affect the way Genesis has been read trough the centuries or the way it is interpreted today outside of those pockets of fundamentalism. All the old commentaries on genesis are still just as good as they've always been. Heck, some of them even sound prescient since they bet on Platos theory of forms and argued that it was those forms which were created in 6 days while the actual physical manifestations appeared over time; some of the commentaries accidentally anticipated evolution long before such a theory existed.
 
Last edited:
Consider the following analogy:

A young child has an absentee father who has never visited the child and never spoken a single word to him. The absentee father however expects that the child follows all of the father's rules, so he dispatches a friend to relay the message to the child. The friend says "I was sent by your father to tell you how to live; do all of these things". However, the child is also visited by 99 other people also claiming to speak for his father, each carrying dramatically different messages. The child is overwhelmed and doesn't know what to do, so he just manages to live his life the best way he can. Later on, when the absentee father finds out the child didn't do everything he was told, he sends one of his goons to lock the child up in the basement, then torture the child for decades until it dies.

The most fundamentally important reason why I'm an atheist is that I recognize we are presented with an impossible choice. There are hundreds of religions and hundreds of gods in the world, yet there is no objective way to prove one right over the other. For those of you who believe there is only one correct answer, how can any given human being be expected to select the one right religion of the hundreds presented while rejecting all of the others? The vast majority of people in the world never make it out of their parents' religion, so if you believe in eternal hellfire, you believe most people are inherently doomed based solely on where they were born and to whom.

God, like the absentee father, could easily just tell us his will directly and unambiguously, instead he chooses a medium that can be easily falsified and has 100 other similar religions that have contradictory accounts. There is no way to determine which account actually comes from god and which doesn't. A parent doesn't torture their kids for their entire lives when they screw up, they briefly punish the child and guide it in the right direction, so why would god act any differently?

Aron Nimzowitsch, a noted chess champion of the late 1800's and early 1900's, stated in the opening pages of his book on chess that "God also plays games."

So you are right about that, RabAlp.

We don't know why God(s) play these games, other than they make intellectualizing about God(s) difficult.

There are various speculations though.

1 - maybe God(s) do/does not care about you specifically RabAlp, although He/She/They do care about everybody else.

2 - maybe you RabAlp are a miscreant and would not fit into Heaven anyway.

3 - maybe God(s)' powers are limited and They/She/he must follow certain rules of noncommunication.

4 - maybe God(s) define true freedom for us as our being completely in the dark so we can do whatever we want without fear.
 
Last edited:
Not really.

It disproves a certain way of reading Genesis which became fashionable around the turn of the century and remains popular only within pockets of Evangelical Fundamentalism, primarily in the southern USA.

It doesn't affect the way Genesis has been read trough the centuries or the way it is interpreted today outside of those pockets of fundamentalism. All the old commentaries on genesis are still just as good as they've always been. Heck, some of them even sound prescient since they bet on Platos theory of forms and argued that it was those forms which were created in 6 days while the actual physical manifestations appeared over time; some of the commentaries accidentally anticipated evolution long before such a theory existed.
The entire order in genesis is wrong. Water before land, earth before the heavens, plants on land before life in the sea...just to name a few.
 
It's not an insignificant detail, it's the entire basis of your analogy. Framing this poorly can lead to poor decisions.

You're still failing to grasp the difference. The difference isn't between being invited to do something and being told to do something. The difference is between being invited to come meet your alleged father and being told to do a list of things by someone claiming to be your father. The two scenarios couldn't be any more different. The first scenario (being invited to meet your father) actually matches what the major monotheistic religions propose, the second scenario (being given a set of rules to follow) doesn't. If we want our analogy to be good, shouldn't we use the one that most closely matches reality?

With a poor analogy come poor results. It would seem reasonable based on your bad analogy to simply discard all of the rules in frustration. In fact, in your story, that's what the child decides to do.

If this were framed more accurately, on the other hand, a new solution starts to appear. If we understand that no one is handing you lists of things to do, but rather that you are being handed various invitations to come meet someone claiming to be your father, the situation changes. The more rational response starts to be more obvious; go meet some of these people. Go ahead and have lunch, ask questions, get to know them. See what kind of connection you have; does something click between you? Does he look like you? Does his story fit in with what you know to be true? Do you feel any kind of bond? Do his claims ring true? Not only are you being invited to meet your father but you are also being told that he is going to take away your pain, free you from the things that hold you down, and help you realize your purpose and potential. After spending time with your alleged father, are those things really happening?

There's a big difference between being handed a bunch of invitations to meet your long lost father and being handed a list of things to do by messengers claiming to be from your father. A better analogy leads to more rational results.

Your analogy was simply bad. It does a poor job of presenting the situation.

You aren't really being "invited to meet" your father though. It would be more like being told to speak to your father telepathically and believe that feeling you get, that little voice inside. You don't physically meet God, at all, in this life.
 
The entire order in genesis is wrong. Water before land, earth before the heavens, plants on land before life in the sea...just to name a few.

Yes, and?? It eliminates Genesis as being historically true. That isn't a problem, except to people who believe the bible is inerrant, totally literal , and is a history book. There are other ways to look at it.
 
The problem with this illustration is that it doesn't describe anything remotely resembling what Christianity proposes. In all likelihood, it also does not describe what the other monotheistic options offer either, but I won't comment on those since I am not an expert on those. Christianity does not propose a God who wants to send you rules to follow and will punish you if you don't. Christianity proposes a God who wants to have a relationship with you and who promises to give you meaning and purpose, to set you free from the pain and captivity that is part of the human condition, and to fulfill that yearning for knowing the creator that is common to most humans.


The problem with this line of thinking - to the logical brain - is that one must die in order to get to know the creator. And since no one ever comes back from that show with a T-shirt, there's no proof that it ever actually happens.

And not to sound snippy, but save your tales of near-death experiences.
 
What's to be ashamed of? I know it's not true. people who follow this thread - THINKING people - know it's not true!

If there's anyone who tries to manipulate the truth - that would be you!
You approved someone like Lenny Flank - trying to pass him off as an "authoritative" reference! :lol:

I suppose, anyone will do.....as long as they're saying what you wanna hear.

You are a ****ing liar. I have never heard of that person and at no point have I ever mentioned him. You are dishonest and the things you say are brain cancer. Go lie to someone else.

Yes, and?? It eliminates Genesis as being historically true. That isn't a problem, except to people who believe the bible is inerrant, totally literal , and is a history book. There are other ways to look at it.

Of course, there are 7 billion ways of looking at it, one unique to every person on earth. Religion can change and morph to be anything the individual wants, there is no objectivity or consistency.
 
The problem with this line of thinking - to the logical brain - is that one must die in order to get to know the creator. And since no one ever comes back from that show with a T-shirt, there's no proof that it ever actually happens.

And not to sound snippy, but save your tales of near-death experiences.

That's not a very logical brain.

That's an overly skeptical brain having no faith at all and very little sense of the applicable alternative possibilities.
 
Yes, and?? It eliminates Genesis as being historically true. That isn't a problem, except to people who believe the bible is inerrant, totally literal , and is a history book. There are other ways to look at it.

A lot of Protestants sincerely believe that the Hand Of God reached down from Heaven and wrote the Bible with pen and ink in English and therefore it is flawless.

Rather a difficult concept to maintain in light of the fact that the English language was not even invented yet when Jesus and Moses each walked the Earth.
 
You aren't really being "invited to meet" your father though. It would be more like being told to speak to your father telepathically and believe that feeling you get, that little voice inside. You don't physically meet God, at all, in this life.

Lots of fathers here on the Earth are forced by their jobs to be absentee.

Naval officers and sailors are absentee not by choice for long periods of 3 to 5 months.

Deployed Navy and Army officers and troops are away from home for many more months at a time.

Merchant marine crewmen are also gone for long periods while their massive ships are underway or returning.
 
one must die in order to get to know the creator.

That's not a fact. It's a metaphysical claim. Most world religions disagree with you on that.
 
Last edited:
You aren't really being "invited to meet" your father though. It would be more like being told to speak to your father telepathically and believe that feeling you get, that little voice inside. You don't physically meet God, at all, in this life.

Most conceptions of God do not give it a physical body at all. So, you don't physically meet God in any life because physically meeting something that is not physical is impossible.

The fact remains that the claim being made is that you will meet God and establish a relationship with him through the practice of religion. If you come to the conclusion that it isn't God at all, but rather your own mind, then that's your conclusion. But the claim they make is that you will enter into a relationship with God.

The analogy of the absent father is terrible. We've already established that. I'm aware that it's a bad analogy to begin with. But it is at least somewhat fixed if we change the "list of rules" for an "invitation to meet". Is it perfect? No. Like you pointed out, it's more than just an invitation, it's an invitation that includes instructions for how to meet your father that are, unorthodox, to say the least. In addition to that, the idea of God as an absent father comes from a very deist-driven perspective that contradicts some of the central claims of Christianity and Judaism. Christianity and Judaism see God, not as an absent father but as one who is actively at work in the world. This analogy is very poorly thought out. I never claimed this was a good analogy, someone else was making that claim. It's a very poor analogy and I tried to fix it as best I could. But you're right, ultimately it's still not a great analogy. We're better off discarding it entirely.
 
Last edited:
The entire order in genesis is wrong. Water before land, earth before the heavens, plants on land before life in the sea...just to name a few.

If the purpose of the creation story in Genesis was to make claims about the manner and order in which the physical world was created, this would matter. But that's not a very common view of why we have a creation account in Genesis, nor is it a very common view on how we should read and understand it, so it isn't relevant.
 
Last edited:
I think that you are not understanding a prime reason for people to join religious groups. Religion is simply a place for friendship and social supports. Getting with like-minded people. A port of safety and acceptance in a world of alienation, change, and uncertainty. Theology is not important-it all relies on faith anyway, not proof or evidence.
Most books are wellness stress the need for a)spirituality and b)social connections. Religious congregations can serve the needs for both for many. If you have trouble with the theology than church may not work and perhaps one could find another avenue for spirituality. As for social connections, it seems that there are few avenues for social assistance that are as good as church congregations. Especially for the elderly.
 
Back
Top Bottom