"If there are any probes down range, please beep entertainingly when shot"
-Mark4
|
| #1 jeezumcrow[37764] | | svwebw02.statestreet.com | | first now to read it:) | | #2 jeezumcrow[37767] | | svwebw02.statestreet.com | wow great game!
but i also liked the way u used characters to set up your battle reporting. Damn mine just pales in comparison :( | | #3 <font color=yellow> |]agomar[37768] | | static-87.itcanada.com | Great comeback!
Well done ;)
8.5
That drone drop was just 2gosu4me | | #4 Pika_Flare[37772] | | ppp9074.on.bellglobal.com | | I like how you descibed the SCV battle =] | | #5 AdmiralPlinko[37775] | | clarc-dhcp-147.cc.rochester.edu | | You have mocked my religion and my browser, and I am deeply offended. | | #6 Kentarre[37779] | | spider-tn043.proxy.aol.com | may i reiterate this statement i said many times during the game....
I SUCK WITH TERRAN!
oh well, damn your drones skittles. >=[ | | #7 shockwave[37782] | | exchange1.sensable.com | Nice report, but was the demeaning religious stuff really necessary? I mean, you wouldn't have thought to ridicule Greenpeace or vegetarians the same way, would you?
Anyway... hmm, instead of killing off your irradiated unit, why don't you just burrow it (if it's a land unit)? I guess he didn't have burrow researched? | | #8 SuperGeneral[37795] | | cr732571-a.pr1.on.wave.home.com | D'oh, you still messed up. But I feel the same way. Stupid people always try to push stuff on me. Geez, I don't mind if you practise it, just leave me out of it...
by the way... nice report :) | | #9 Fox^1[37798] | | inehou-pxy02.compaq.com | Hehe my favorite part was the use of Fox in the BR. hehe Go comeback zerg!!!! VALKS!!!!???? He should have won!!!
Fox^1 | #10  [37801] | | 98AB743E.ipt.aol.com | Your prologue was offensive / funny. I couldn't help but chuckle a bit at this quote:
"<i>'Gee, suspiciously symmetrical don't you think?' Captain Henderson smiled warmly and joined Duncan by the window.
'Quite, Duncan. More proof that Jesus exists. I mean, this couldn't have happened by chance, now, could it?'</i>"
As for the rest of the BR... nice screenshots, nice descriptions. Can't believe that the Zerg won... that's just crazy man...
8
Dref
| | #11 Bane-The-Feared[37808] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | Well, I liked the report and all..but why the heck did you have to put anti-religion kinda crap in this? I won't get into the fact that mere islands aren't what proves the fact that Jesus exists... I don't mean to offend anyone or put anyone down but only a very narrow minded person could be an atheist. And by the way..you think this happened by chance? What started it? A bang? What caused that bang?
Again I don't mean to offend anyone... | | #12 wallabystein[37811] | | pm162-180.dialup.netidea.com | Haha, sorry guys I don't really mean to bash religion with this.. I just get a kick outta those Jehova's Witness types and how they like to try and convert me all the time.
Bane: I'm not really atheist, some good stuff can come from religion, but it's not for me. There are just too many inconsistencies in genesis, it's not a good enough theory. The big bang I don't know much about.. something like one molecule exploded and became the whole universe? Where'd that molecule come from? But as a parrallel question, where'd God come from? My take on the whole universe thing: It's always been here, because I can't imagine it ever not being here, that's just impossible. Trying to relate earthly things like age to something as vast as the universe is kinda narrow minded. Bah, I've been through all this, and am quite sick of it.
-wallaby | | #13 wallabystein[37813] | | pm162-180.dialup.netidea.com | Anybody who wants to see why my last report was banned can go to www.angelfire.com/sc2/brewdwors
it's offensive, but not because of anything religious, so it got deleted. I think that's why it was taken down, anyway. | | #14 <FONT COLOR=0000FF>RS.anime(RS)</FONT>[37815] | | sfe-nm6-163.ix.netcom.com | | GRRRRRRR,jehova witness is not a real religion, it a occulut trying to get money off morons who think it's a sect oh chirstianity. Ignorent people make agnry. | | #15 BW-sux[37816] | | spider-we032.proxy.aol.com | The religion intro was definitely not true to the SC storyline (read the SC manual). It says religion was banned by some group, I forgot.
Anyway, I believe there is a God out there somewhere. | | #16 TaloN[37819] | | cx110054-a.pwy1.sdca.home.com | | Gosu pictures they are coooooooooool ^^ | | #17 Bane-The-Feared[37832] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | | I like the way you worded your follow-up post wallaby, it wasn't offensive at all, so thank you. I don't want to keep this going but I'll leave it at this....If you can believe the universe was here forever why can't you believe God was here forever? I'm not gonna post anything else on this. Nice report, I enjoyed reading it ;] | | #18 Aquamarine[37842] | | cthulhu.static.shore.net | | heh..gg i got to try that drone rush thingie... | | #19 [37843] | | 98A93B14.ipt.aol.com | How bout this? I believe that God exists, but not in the context that religon puts him in...
And I was not really offended... it ran on a little long, but it was kinda funny... :-)
Dref | | #20 GoT GaMe[37856] | | user-2initog.dialup.mindspring.com | nice one.
a wallaby br and nobody still hasn't commented???
somethings amiss
| | #21 wallabystein[37862] | | pm162-184.dialup.netidea.com | Bane: Yeah, I suppose you got a point there.. but I have a little trouble with the idea of a God who looks like us and interferes with our petty lives.. I haven't really decided if I believe in a god or not, but I'm leaning towards the whole evolution thing just because there are too many unanswered questions in the bible. It's true that evolution doesn't have all the answers, but the theory progresses, and new discoveries are made.
Anime: How do Jehova's witnesses make money? They don't seem all that corrupt to me.. but then, the Taoist Tai Chi Society doesn't seem corrupt to a lot of people, when really they're a front for a major triad.. DEMONS OUT
oh, one more thing: I think it's more narrow minded to think you know how the universe was created than to dismiss creationism. and haha, we'll never know, either | | #22 wallabystein[37863] | | pm162-184.dialup.netidea.com | Got~Game: true, true..
and have you ever thought of changing your name to Goat~Game? | | #23 probe[37870] | | 242849hfc54.tampabay.rr.com | u know whats really funny
bane = immortal god of evil, terror, fear, viloence, and massacre, in the forgotten realms
the feared = fear = fear = fear, get it? fear.
bane-the-feared = whining about religius insults blah blah
that's .. pretty .. ironic... HEH :D
other than that, nifty BR, and if people are too dumb to relize you were sarcasting about the religious, then they are too dumb for their own good.
-probe | | #24 Fox^1[37878] | | inehou-pxy06.compaq.com | Wallabystein about inconsistencies in genesis. Understand that it was translated and handed down for 1000's of years. But yah it does have some inconsistencies.
I also wanted to comment that all of us can get really gay with SC and be assholes at times, but I am glad to see people being serious and mature about God and religion.
It shows that we all aren't really idiots ;)
Fox^1 | | #25 Bane-The-Feared[37879] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | Heh, I know I said I wasn't gonna say anything else..
Wallaby: What do u mean by God looks like us? In the past people have interpreted the Bible like, God said make animals, like with the snap of a finger..It doesn't say that, he could have slowly evolved them on the Earth. It says something like "God said let there be animals, and there were animals." That could mean anything. It could mean animals were slowly evolved.
Probe: To tell you the truth, I didnt even know what bane meant before I looked it up after I made the name. I got it from Star Wars, as in Darth Bane. But even so, my name on SC has nothing to do with my actual life... and I did realize that it was a joke, and I was not mad, just pointing something out. | | #26 wallabystein[37891] | | pm162-121.dialup.netidea.com | Bane -- yeah, the bible can be interpreted a whole lotta ways.. God being the force behind evolution makes a lot more sense to me than a guy with a beard in a workshop nailing giraffes together..
And if christianity were proved, I'd join the hell's angels and be a rebel so that I could get all the ladies. Hmm.. actually this whole offensive BR thing could help me develop my starcraft bad boy image.
-wallaby | | #27 jeezumcrow[37892] | | PPPa30-ResaleMassachussetts4-4R1162.saturn.bbn.com | lol
nice defending arguments, all of you | | #28 Sp|nE[37893] | | dialup0805-pri.voicenet.com | | all of you shut the fuck up there is no god | | #29 Bane-The-Feared[37894] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | | Well, I won't get into you guys' personal lives...just didn't want to end on that note... | | #30 ::nobody::[37895] | | dt0f4n84.san.rr.com | Wallaby, i just got back from vaccation...i go read this now ^^
ciao!
::nobody:: | | #31 Fox^1[37896] | | inehou-pxy04.compaq.com | Nobody is my hero^^
Fox^1 | | #32 ::nobody::[37898] | | dt0f4n84.san.rr.com | OMG ownage! Wallaby they keep getting better (ps. u are a sick man hehe ^^)
Fox = my hero.
ciao!
::nobody:: | | #33 billyjoebob[37899] | | spider-wn034.proxy.aol.com | Kentarre's a freakin loser!!!!!!!!!! What moron attacks with the sci vessels when tanks and goliaths with charon boosters could have easily taken out the massive force of hydras/ lurkers and overlords!!!!!!!!
Over all though, it was a great game and as in the game it can quite clearly be seen that Kentarre really sucks with Terran!!!!!!!!! Wow that one had me on the edge of my seats (on for each cheek) and, damn! what a great comeback | | #34 Zephyr[37928] | | proxy.xtra.co.nz | Science Vessels are a very viable tactic on Dire Straits, particularly as Kentarre's opponent wasn't using offensive air units. SVs could be used for attack and defence, whereas goliaths have to be carted around in dropships to attack, and then aren't effective against ground because of their mediocre guns. And he did use tanks. And SVs detect.
To Bane on God: "If you can believe the universe was here forever why can't you believe God was here forever?"
Because the universe is definitely here now, and God very possibly isn't. I haven't seen Him and He never returned my calls. Whether the universe was here forever is arguable, but whether it's here now isn't. Whether God was here forever is arguable, AND whether He's here now is also debatable.
I have no closed mind; I can believe God was here forever. But I think the alternative is more likely.
“To count as an atheist, one needn't claim to have proof that there are no gods. One only needs to believe that the evidence on the god question is in a similar state to the evidence on the werewolf question. So I am an atheist.” – John McCarthy
Booya. | | #35 Zephyr[37929] | | proxy.xtra.co.nz | | What does booya actually mean anyway? | | #36 Bane-The-Feared[37936] | | 205.152.18.11 | | That's a very good argument Zephyr, but again, if God was proven to exist, you wouldn't need any faith. | | #37 Bane-The-Feared[37937] | | 205.152.18.11 | | Anyway, I seriously don't want to keep on about this, it seems as if it will turn into a big fight and I don't want that. I don't want this to change our hanging out on b.net. ;] | | #38 AdmiralPlinko[37964] | | clarc-dhcp-127.cc.rochester.edu | Wow... A religious debate and everyone but Sp|nE is acting civilly. Anyway, I'm not sure what these inconsistencies are that everyone says are in Genesis. I don't want to turn this into a religion forum, but I don't see any inconsistencies and I would like to know specifically what you think is inconsistent. I happen to think that evolution has more inconsistencies than Genesis. And as for never seeing God, let me ask you a question: If God spoke to you, would you listen? Would you accept proof of the existence of God if you found any? It's my personal belief that if you ask God to show you if He exists, and you are willing to accept whatever answer you get, then He will prove Himself.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts. I'm not going to come after you with fusion cutters if you don't like them. | | #39 Elendale[37967] | | 205-213-43-227.sdlax.k12.wi.us | Ack... still not a S&S report :(
You mean people tricked me into reading another one *sniff*
It was cool though. I got confused for a while, but I think I have it figured out now... Hopefully... Yeah...
It makes a lot more sense when you read Wallaby's last BR *snicker* No wonder that got deleted...
Oh, now I'll spam the comments of any ::nobody:: or wallabystein br until i see a spunk and shandy report at a rate of 1 comment per minute...
-Elendale (evil-villain-cackle noises) | | #40 Elendale[37968] | | 205-213-43-227.sdlax.k12.wi.us | Wait... where am I going to get that kind of time... Oh well, it was worth a try
-Elendale (*sigh* gimme S&S you fools!!!<i>!</i>) | | #41 <font color=yellow> |]agomar[37969] | | gateway.ncdsb.com | Some things like Genesis are not to be taken literally, they explain why the world was created more than how it was.
And with regards to the Christian stuff, I did find it quite offensive . . . but I forgive you. I know God has helped me alot in my life, in a helluvalot of ways ( yes, I'm pretty religious ).
But . . . br rocked anyways ;). Next time insult Probe, Talon and RubberDucky. Can't go wrong there =D | | #42 <font color=yellow> |]agomar[37970] | | gateway.ncdsb.com | And if Sp|ne says there is no God, Who the hell cares.
Maybe he should try acting at least a bit considerately of other peoples' deepest beliefs. grrrrrrrr
PS if there's not God, how was the Universe created? What created that which came before the Big Bang? Matter can not be formed from nothingness by itself. | | #43 <font color=yellow> |]agomar[37971] | | gateway.ncdsb.com | And FINALLY, if there's no God, there is no purpose in life, at least not for me. We all are destined to die, civilization is very probably destined to die, and even if we find some way of keeping alive forever, what's the point? All we'll do is exist.
I believe there's something more than just the material, and I believe we all have a purpose/mission in life.
That's 'nuf for me for a couple weeks on this, hehe | | #44 Limp_Bizkit666[38012] | | cerebus.smc.edu | FYI, in the Vatican, the Pope and many VERY religious people met in 1965 or 1955, and declared the entire book of Genisis to be taken as a metaphor.
also, the Big Bang theory does NOT say something created the bang, but we just don't know it. One of Hawking's theories describe the universe to just "BE". it wasn't created, not destroyed. it was constant, and will just BE.
and, if you follow up on physics like i do, the new wrinkle in Hyperspace theory, the supersting theory sums up a lot of thing. the description of the Big Bang is not really a Big Bang. the "bang" was an aftershock of 10 dimentional space-time to subdivide into two separate parts:4 dimentional space that we live in, and 6 dimentional space that is curled up. because of hyper-shrinkage of the 6 dimentional space-time, it created an oposition, the hyper expansion of the 4 dimentional world.
it will take so much space to describe all the stuff, so if you are truly interested, go read hawking's A Brief History in Time, and some other physics books like Elegant Universe by Greene, or Hyperspace by Kaku.
if you are tryly lazy, just e-mail me at tryingtotakeovertheworld@hotmail.com
hehehe
the inconsistence in the bible is not to be taken lightly. the most revered text in the face of human kind has many inconsistences, and also some NOT included for it was not "religious enough" such as the Song of songs and book of ester.
the old testament contain the book of genesis. if the book of genisis is taken exclusively as a metaphor, shouldn't the ENTIRE bible taken as a methaphor?
isn't one of the passages say "the logos was the word, the word was logos and logos was God" or something like that?
i don't know any of BR.com visitor's religious affiliation, so i don't want to offend anyone. just my opinion is that unlike DREF's assumption, the RELIGIOUS people are actually the ones with narrow-minded characteristics when it comes to religious stuff.
they do not understand that science and religion can co-exist. anyways,
if you want something out of me, or for more serious talk in the case of religion or science, email me..
byeya
p.s-<font color="red">i'm an agnostic, BTW. i don't want to catagorize myself as one specific religion, when all the religion basically say the same thing:live well, be happy.</font color="red"> | | #45 Limp_Bizkit666[38016] | | cerebus.smc.edu | following up for Dagomar, the purpose of life is NOT to be religous and worship something you may never know....
the purpose of life is to BE. to procreate, to survive, to live.
that is what the thoery of evolution say. so live, to survive, and to procreate.
also, if you follow up on physics, there is a thing called spontaneous-appearance or someshit like that, where matter appear from nothingness, and disappear in a short while. there is NOTHING that can stop an exact copy of Dagomar made entirely of anti-matter suddenly appear next to you, and annilate you from the face of the earth. there is no catch at all.
now, if you believe strictly in the Big Bang, not in hyperspace or anything, Big Bang created time itself.
eventually there was a very improbable occcurence where a big ass explosion took place. because in the past, the einstein's theory of relatively and the mechancis of quamtum physics coudn't coexist. but as the supersting theory is takem more seriously, the explanations come forth like shooting stars. (pun, foo. now laugh)
anyways, that was it.
i think wallabystein is very happy for it seems like all these comments are actually the ones that priase him...heheheh
p.s-wally, i want you.hehehe | | #46 Bane-The-Feared[38018] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | | Limp_Bizkit: I am not narrow minded at all. I can't speak for other Christians, but I am 15 and understood every single thing you just said. One question does come to mind: If you can believe that, why can't you believe in a superior, omnipotent being? | | #47 Bane-The-Feared[38020] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | | One more thing: There is nothing you could ever possibly say to disprove or prove God exists. Every theory you said had to originate somewhere, eg. where did the space-time come from? | | #48 Limp_Bizkit666[38026] | | cerebus.smc.edu | As i said, Hwking's theory describes a universe where everyhthing is just be.
and, i didn't say i do not believe in supeior omnipotent being, i said i don't want to be associated with a specific religious group. i'm an agnostic, who are not sure if God truly exists or not. that is why i'm taking major science classes AND religious classes so that at least i will be closer to the truth than others settle for.
Of course there is no such thing to DISPROVE something's existence, because the burden of proof (the need to provide evidence that proves a case) falls on the theologians. because i'm an agnostic that is more of an atheostic view points, i can't prove God's existence.
It is very hard to prove an existence of God, but it is not impossible. the only impossible feat is if (or "when" if you are optimistic =]) God's existence is proven, which religious affiliation is the correct one? could it be that the Muslims been right all along? budist? romans? greeks?
that part is not distinguisable. mono-theostic religions and poly-theostic religions are very similar. for example, the Christians argue in the declaration of Trinity. The father, the son and the Holy Spirit. these three "being" are told to be God, and God only.
Jesus, the supposed "son" of God, is actually God, and within the Scripture said "God became Flesh", thus claiming humanic form of God exists. it doesn't say it was Jesus, tho. for if it was Jesus that was with God since the begining, Jesus would have dies very early.
Jesus was "fully god, and fully human" and was subject to death. God is known to men as "immortal." if Jesus was "fully God", and if God is immortal, how could God die?
and if GOD dies, who is left to resurrect the powerful GOD him/herself?
or, if there is only one God, and if God is the son, why was Jesus TALKING to GOD?
Christians then claimed that Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were nothing more than manifestation of the sole God. then, couldn't polytheosts argue all their gods, although they seem like separate gods, be a mere menifastaion of one true god? likewise, couldn't monotheosist argue that believeing in three separate figures, although considered one, is a form of polytheosim?
more of these things come up.
we are not even close to the truth. the exitence of space-time or anything, i can't say. i can say in represantative of science, and say that space-time was just there. as Hawking said. and i could only say that some event, some unknown event that COULD have been caused by God, created an event known as Big Bang. we can't tell, until we find out more stuff.
scinetists want truth, but religious (most, not all, for i haven't had the time to meet all) only rely on faith. i am not saying blind faith is wrong, but how can you TRUST something of unknown origin and of unknown validity?
because i only know stuff of the bible, i'll speak of it. the bible is supposedly written of Divine insparation. if you read the Bible, God and the Devil communicates to men in similar form. through human form, through temtation, and through "voices in the head". if you can't distinguish the difference of nature of the source of the divine inspiration, how can you say the Bible in entirely written in good-natured stuff?
arrgg. i think i wrote too much. e-mail me at tryingtotakeovertheworld@hotamil.com for discussions or whatever.
byeya
p.s-i love ********... hehehhehe
| | #49 The RottenDog[38032] | | ts3-5.amery.spacestar.net | | Oh, and LimpBizkit = very researched :) | | #50 Limp_Bizkit666[38038] | | cerebus.smc.edu | hmmm, i didn't have all the time in the world to read the long ass report in the link from The RottenDog, but it seems like it is quite false.
i think instead of attacking(!) the existence of God itself, but is merely making fun of religeous PEOPLE and certain religions. they are not in a broad sense, have anything to do with the truth of God, but truth of people.
i think the site is a little biased, coming from an atheist, but it DOES contain MANY reasons, the same reasons, that i deter from specific religion...
anyways, have fun.
byeya
p.s-<font color="red">whoa, i just fell in love with the rotten dog.... heheheh</font color="red">
| | #51 Limp_Bizkit666[38042] | | cerebus.smc.edu | Oh, BTW, wallabystein, i apologize if you felt that i am envading your space of criticisms. (good or bad, but mostly good =])
i didn't mean to take so much of the space, and i understand that it deserves to be in the "phorum" section, but i couldn't help sharing what i thought, and to educate at least some people out there..
sorry.
byeya
p.s-if you liked it, HELL YEAH! hehehe
| | #52 Bane-The-Feared[38048] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | I am no expert on the Bible by any means, (I haven't had enough time being 15), but anyway...Blind faith is what my entire religion is based on, and what every religion is based on as far as I'd say...
It's a test of faith, checking if you can swallow your pride and believe there is someone better than you are :) | | #53 Bane-The-Feared[38049] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | | One more thing: How can we, with our human minds possibly think we can conceive of the true, valid thoughts of God? Think of a little kid that absolutely knows for sure he's right but you know he's obviously doing something stupid. Then think of God thinking the same thing about us, although he's a heck of a lot smarter to us than we are to a child. | | #54 Limp_Bizkit666[38053] | | cerebus.smc.edu | whoa, whoa..
i never said i wanted to be God, nor know what God thought if/when he created the Universe.
when i said i wanted to know the truth, i meant understanding the background on all the necessary stuff needed to make an argument. such as scientific background, knowing the Bible, and knwoing the possibility and plausability of events, and also knowing logic, linguistics, and phiolophy behind religion so at leat *I* can know, and be close to, the truth....
if God truly exists, no one will be able to prove his/her existence. because the burden of proof falls on the believers, and because believers themselves can't prove god's existence, (or at least it seems) i'm just wanting to know more...
isn't that a better answer than "i believe."??
knowing WHAT you believe, knowing WHAT you hear, and BELIEVING what you KNOW is a better understanding of religion and human nature.
unless you are an expert of both science and religion, you can't make arguments for both. because you are only making an argument on behalf of YOUR SIDE, many inconsistencies, and misunderstandings occur. MY GOAL, is to be knowledgable in both fields. that's all i want. i'll probably NEVER find out the truth, only feel like that.
for me, the duration in which i spend searching/denouncing God had more effect on me then when i was a believer. (i was born into a Catholic family). i think you all should try that too...
learn your side, and learn the opposition. make the world a better place, right??
byeya
p.s-WEEEEEEEEEE!! hehehhe | | #55 WilliamWC3[38056] | | huru27.wuh.wustl.edu | Note to self: criticize major relgion in next battle report.
Heh, I'm just going to add a few thoughts. First of all I don't think anyone can argue terribly sensibly about this subject in under fifty pages, although I found Limp_Bizkits comments very intelligent and enlightening.
The first problem with arguing for or against the existence of God is that although it is a commonly used term it doesn't always have a consistent definition. When you say God do you mean an omnipotent, benevolent being in whos image man was made, like most major religions believe. Or do you simply mean that being which created the universe. Obviously the arguments on either side of the issue would have to be completely different.
Ok, I'm going to stop on that because I feel a 50 page essay coming on. About the physics side of it; the reason
people have trouble understanding the big bang and modern physics theorys about the creation of the universe (I read a Brief History of Time btw) is that time is quite possibly an attribute of this universe. To ask what existed before the big bang is completely non-sensical. The concept of before and after depends on the existence of time. Why must time be infinite?
Ok well again there are tons of theorys already written about that and I am not going to get into it now. As for me.. does God exist? undecided. | | #56 Rysk_Spion[38065] | | C418.sparta.lu.se | The intro was great!
And the rest of the report wasn't bad either.... | | #57 <font color=yellow> |]agomar[38068] | | static-40.itcanada.com | a) The purpose of life is to procreate, to survive? What for, if there's no God? Surviving is not an end purpose, it is but an immediate goal.
b) New theories state that the current universe was once the size of the Plank length, which is the distance between two atoms, and that its precursor was a 6 dimensional universe. Due to unknown reasons, this universe broke apart and collapsed, so that IT is now the size of the PLank length, causing our Universe to swell to fill the huge void.
c) the Universe can not simply be and have been forever. Since matter cannot form from nothingness ( and matter is what the universe is, or rather condensed energy, which = matter )there must have been a God to create the Cosmos. I've done an enormous amount of reserach on all this junk; I want to become a Cosmologist when my crazy studies are done ;)
d) I'm glad you guys are taking this seriously, and obviously have alot of knowledge in these things. While your attitudes very likely will change through life ( I know I wasn't nearly as religious a year ago as I am now, things happen ) your attitude and perception will not change, as will your critical thinking =D | | #58 [38069] | | 98CA58F1.ipt.aol.com | Heh, this is funny... following blind faith is absurd. A lot of people die because of blind faith (i.e. cult suicides).
I believe that God exists, but not in the context that most major religons put him in. Religon was created to control large groups of people and make them behave through fear. Unfortunately, this kind of crap hasn't died out.
Coming from a very conservative background, I can atest to all the, "Don't do this or you'll go to hell, Don't do that or you'll go to hell" mentality and its not pleasant.
My only advice is that everyone discover for themselves what is true to them personally. Don't follow blindly after your parent's religon and your religous leaders.
Cheers,
Dref | | #59 Bane-The-Feared[38099] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | | I am far from following blindly my parents religion, and most Christianity (except Catholicism) is not based on, don't do this or you'll go to hell. It's do this and you'll go to heaven, don't do it you'll go to hell. Most Christianity is based on accepting Christ, that doesn't have anything to do with controlling them. And if it was "created" to control people why did they crucify the creator of it if it was good for the government? | | #60 TheRottenDog[38101] | | ts1-14.amery.spacestar.net | "Religon was created to control large groups of people and make them behave through fear."
Amen! LOL | | #61 Limp_Bizkit666[38113] | | 206.117.45.176 | to Dag: An immediate goal? then the "Ultimate" goal would be what? to go to heaven? what about people who does not believe in God? That is absurd. the Ultimate goal of any living orgasm is to survive and to procreate. If you are so sure of your ultimate goal, why don't you ask an atheist to kill you? then you will have achived your ultimate goal, and not worry about pathetic "immediate" goal, right??
Everything we do is for survival. why do you sleep? so you don't die. why do you eat? so you don't die. why do you need cloths? so you don't die of embarassment, or cold...hehe. why do you need to work? so you don't die. why do you have anything? so you don't die. why don't you die? SO THAT YOU CAN PROCREATE!
also, the "new" theory you are describing seems like the "old" one... the "old" theory does NOT KNOW what happened BEFORE the universe was smaller than Plank's diameter. That is why we have no idea what happed before. It was NOT the 6 dimentional universe already. I think you are mixing two different equations together. I know this stuff, for i'm about to become an astrophysicist. =]...
anyways, if you have been a good boy, and read Hawking's stuff like WC3 have, (i'm not saying Hawking can't make mistakes, nor shall we "blindly have faith" in his words)you will see that he does give an example of a still universe, where matter, time, and space was just there. If universe wasn't created, there is no need for a creator. Dag, you believe in causal clause too much. just because you see something, doesn't mean there need to be a cause.
to Dref: Hell yeah! that is what i'm talking about. Finding it out on YOUR OWN, and not follow anything others say that you have doubt in. I'm NOT saying you should challenge any kind of authority or scientific validity. But i am saying if you have a doubt or question, feel free to ask authority and find out for your own.
to Bane: Most religions DO force a lot of specific actions to be taken place. Christianity for example, can you not go to church and still be "saved"? can you not read the Bible and still be "saved"? can you not follow the words of God and be "saved"? You may not. The Christianity require some type of rule that you must obey. The Ten Commandments are an example, and also other sins in the Bible. Muslins for example, (i think) requires you to pray at least a certain number of hours a day. Buddaism required you to be at peace, no killing whatsoever, and cut your hair. If you do not follow these "commands", you are subject to ENTERNAL damnnation. isn't that forcing you to do something? If you do not believe, that's fine. but if you do believe, you are stuck in a world where all rules are to be followed and where forgiveness is rare. (execept Christianity and Catholocism, where "repentance" is ridiculously used to rid of any sin).
anyways, that is my toughts.
byeya
p.s-weeeee, i love this stuff. this things rock! hehe, college education is paying off in a way. =] | | #62 WilliamWC3[38119] | | huru27.wuh.wustl.edu | Ok, |]agomar I just want to throw out a hypothetical arguement about c) so you can tell me what you think. I've read some stuff but most of this is just me thinking. So don't get offended.
First you state that "the Universe can not simply be and have been forever." I don't see how this is the case. In fact it seems to me quite the opposite. The universe has always existed because time is simply a phenomenon of this universe. To say that there was ever a time that the universe did not exist is absurd because time is only meaningful in this universe.
Secondly supposing that the universe was created how does it follow that it was created by God? Unless you are simply supposing the definition of God to be the creator of the universe, in which case how is that statement meaningful?
One final thing, this one directed at Bane. I respect your faith in a divine creator. However it is not simply enough to say that you have faith with out attempting to examine this. Certainly you cannot believe that every thing said about God or Jesus is true. Many of it is contradictory (note: I'm not just referring to major religions, I'm talking about every sect, every cult, etc.). You have to come up with some way to differentiate between what you believe about God. There is a big difference between blind faith. And a well understood faith.
I just wanted to try to get you to look at arguements a little closer. I'm sure you have good ideas behind your statements. | | #63 Bane-The-Feared[38121] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | To Limp_Bizkit: The answer to all of those questions such as "Can you go to church and still be saved? etc." is yes. You have to believe Christ died for your sins and that's it. Catholicism is another topic that I don't know much about...And you don't have to obey the ten commandments to go to heaven. Yes, obviously you should follow the ten commandments and be a good person to bring others into the Christian faith and not tempt yourself with Satanic things...but no, it is not required.
Now I'll read WC3's | | #64 Bane-The-Feared[38124] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | To WC3 now: God is a perfect, omnipotent, being, he is not just the creator of the universe...The concept of God is beyond what humans can comprehend...
Yes, there is a big difference between blind faith and a well-understood faith. Well-understood faith has to do with human understanding, since God is incomprehensible to man, it is impossible to be well-understood. Humans must accept that they can't comprehend and swallow their pride. | | #65 Mediocritus[38125] | | bgm-150-230.stny.rr.com | | You know... if we refused to let you talk about your religion... you would whine. So when we talk about your religion, it is only fair, right? I mean come on... you do follow a mixture of a 1 man freak cult and jewish mythology... just own up to that fact and deal with it. It's still fun, you guys even drink at your masses... filthy christi.. I mean, god I love Christians. | | #66 Bane-The-Feared[38126] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | | Drink at our masses...? Who said drinking was bad? Jesus drank whine a lot...he never got drunk. If you get drunk, you're forgiven if you believe Christ died for your sins... | | #67 WilliamWC3[38128] | | huru27.wuh.wustl.edu | Bane: If God is incomprehensible to man that what is the purpose in organized religion? What is the purpose in going to church? What is the purpose in believing in him? You could say that if I believe I will go to heaven but if he is incomprehensible then how do I know that? Why should I trust you, since he is incomprehensible to you as well? Having faith in something you do not understand is not really having faith in it. It is simply ignoring the alternative. In order to believe in something you must atleast understand what it is. Otherwise how can you know that you are really believing in it and not something else. Your position is rather indefensible and not the one taken by the majority of major religions.
Why am I getting sucked into this? | | #68 Limp_Bizkit666[38129] | | 206.117.45.176 | First at Bane: No. most religions REQUIRE you to follow certain doctirnes. i may be a little confused, but how are you NOT controlled when a religion FORCES you to act certain way?
what i was saying is that although weird, Christianity and Catholocism does not condemn violence and crimes. they claim Jesus, the "SON" of God have dies for our sins, and that through simple repentance, we are forgiven of our sins NO MATTER the CONSEQUENCE or SEVERITY of the action.
Muslims are not so forgiving, and damnation is almost a given for all.
I had a lot of religious talks with people, including Priest, a Pastor's son, and friends. I once asked if you would still go to heaven if you commited a murder. they said "yes," and i told them, "if that is true, why don't you kill people? why don't you steal? why don't you commit crimes that won't matter when you go to heaven, your ultrimate destination?"..
they "fled" by saying, "you can't be a true believer if you do those things. if you truly believe, you won't do that."...
see how they still FORCE you to act a certain way, although the religion itself give freedom overall? even GOD gives us a choice!
anyways,
byeya
p.s-WC3 is getting sucked into this, because he loves me so much....hehe | | #69 Bane-The-Feared[38134] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | | Limp-Bizkut: They don't "force" you to act in a certain way. They make you "want" to act in a certain way, the right way, because you WANT to be a good person. | | #70 Limp_Bizkit666[38136] | | 204.140.185.225 | you WANT to go to heaven, not want to be a good person...
like someone said, the "ultimate" goal is to go to heaven, right?
byeya | | #71 Bane-The-Feared[38137] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | | WC3: Notice I said GOD is incomprehensible, not what he has done for us. And the point is you don't KNOW about God, you know about what he's done, you know about his actions, and you know what he's told you to do. Just think "God gave us just the amount of brains and pride etc...to make it so that there is just the right amount of difficulty in believing. | | #72 Bane-The-Feared[38138] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | | Limp Bizkit: you WANT to go to heaven, and you WANT to be a good person | | #73 Bane-The-Feared[38139] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | | Limp Bizkit: you WANT to go to heaven, and you WANT to be a good person | | #74 WilliamWC3[38140] | | huru27.wuh.wustl.edu | The ultimate goal <i>should</i> be to be a good person simply by defininition.
What is the definition of a good person?
That which one should want to be.
am I right? | | #75 Limp_Bizkit666[38142] | | 206.117.45.176 | for those who believe in heaven and hell, you are given two choices.
Heaven-god's blessing, eternal happiness, and all the good things..
Hell-god's wrath, eternal damnnation, all the evil things...
if you are given those two choices, aren't you to pick heaven? who would pick hell? (pun coming) who in hell will chose the second one??
because the answer is obvious, the religious people are FORCED to want to be a better person...right?
byeya
p.s-i don't like heaven...you can't be bad.... =[ | | #76 WillamWC3[38144] | | huru27.wuh.wustl.edu | | Bane: Ahhh now I see. We know what God has done for us. But how do we know this without studying our surroundings? Surely we must use some observation to determine this. We can still look around, read both quantum physics books and scripture and then say, "Yes, now I see what God has done for me." Do you understand what I am getting at? Also one could argue that there is little difference between what one has done and what one is.. but that is a different story. | | #77 WilliamWC3[38145] | | huru27.wuh.wustl.edu | | guys log onto chat, I'll be waiting | | #78 Limp_Bizkit666[38148] | | 204.140.185.225 | can't get on chat..
byeya | | #79 Limp_Bizkit666[38158] | | PPPa10-ResaleLosAngelesMetro3-3R7088.saturn.bbn.com | OMG, i try to get on chat from my school's t1 line, P3 superfast ass shit at 10 at night, it won't let me..
then i get home and under netzero i try the chat, and it works.....
(stupid remark coming) God must hate me..
hehehehe
anyways, did WC3 and others talk through chat???
byeya
p.s-hope it's all fun.. | | #80 wallabystein[38163] | | s17-annex8k2.dialin.sfu.ca | well, I'm a little late on this whole thing, drivng all day and stuff.. anyway, this is a prettyi cool comments section. I noticed a few things I'd like to point out: People are saying things like "Religion ws created to keep populace in line" or whatever. I think what you mean to say is that church was created for this, not religion. When cro magnon man startd buring people ceremoneously, theyt weren't thinking of controlling the peasants. Also, about the purpose on this planet: I think that we're here to learn something that'll help us out on the next level.. a taoist take on it is that earth is the lowest sorta dimension and by learning things we work our way up yada yada, anyway, yeah.
im not up for entering eastern religion into this whole thing, that'd take a lotta work.anyway, before this thread is all dead, I'd just like to say that the one thing that's common to all religion is the importance of treating other people well. I think that's at the base of.. crap i cant go back and delete my sentences with htis keyboard so it all comes out awkward..
anywayy, before i kill this keyboard.. do unto others as ypou would have them do unto you.. it's really basic principle and I think it's all you need to succeed in this life, yada yada blah i wanna kill this keyboard.
so in conclusion: just be nice .. Wheeee!
| | #81 Bane-The-Feared[38176] | | 205.152.18.11 | OK guys, I truly enjoyed this forum and letting everyone get out their thoughts on the world. I'm not going to put anything else up here, but I did truly have a good time doing so :). I hope this doesn't affect anything that has to do with SC, I know I'm not holding any grudges and don't respect anyone less. I hope to see you guys on B.net :)
Msg me and I'll be happy to play some games. | | #82 Bane-The-Feared[38177] | | 205.152.18.11 | | And to Zephyr: Blind faith does not imply surety, it implies trust. | | #83 <font color=yellow> |]agomar[38180] | | gateway.ncdsb.com | First of all, my ultimate goal is not to go to heaven, but to serve God. God is perfect, thus what I do for him must also be good.
Second, the universe cannot have existed forever. Time was created in the big bang, but that does not mean there was nothing before that bang. There must have been, in order to create it. The key thing here is that <i> Matter cannot have come from nothingness. </i> The nothingness that came before the proto universe that came before Big Bang could not have given birth to our universe.
Third, I certainly do not have blind faith. That is the opposite of what I have. I'm very religious through a variety of excruciating experiences that I have unfortunately had, and from which I have been delivered by God. I wont tell you the specifics of this, but through these arduos experiences is how I came to believe in God
Fourth, Drefsab, I dont think religions were created just to control people. Frankly I find that very simplistic thinking. Every religion have a grain of truth. There really was a Buddah, just as Jesus Christ really existed. A variety of sources tesitfy to Jesus' miracles. In fact, I believe in Christianity because it is the only religion where God comes down to us, his beloved creation, and dies for us to forgive us our sins, rather than that we have to struggle to reach an arogant and vengeful God.
Fifth, I do have an enormous amount of faith in God. It is only be completely trusting him that he will and can help us. However, I do think that God helps those who help themselves . . . .
Sixth, God must be incomprehendable, otherwise he simply is not God. The Definition of God is that he is infinite in all respects, and, as he states in the bible, is on a totally higher plane of being and thinking than us. God can theoretically create a stone he can't lift, hehe.
Seventh, there are all kinds of unique proofs and things to proove the existence of a God, I even bought a program on it. However, since I don't have the greatest of memories and am not an awesome philosopher, I won't mention these ( perhaps I'll give the video a rerun now )
Seventh, we all have our own unique faiths. We are shaped by life, and our beliefs will change as we grow older. This is natural, and predictable.
Eigth, most of us are in a stage of our lives where we must find ourselves. This often implies defiance to our parents, so if our parents are Christian we have a very good chance of, at least for now, being athiest or even Satannic, just to annoy our Parents.
Ninth, I like what Limp Bisket said about Orgasms, oh wait, <b> organisms,</b> rofl
Tenth, I am now ludicrously late for history class, and will spam you guys when I get into nohunters as revenge. | | #84 <font color=yellow> |]agomar[38181] | | gateway.ncdsb.com | Haha, Wally, the worst part to that thinking is that we'll probably get Star Travel in like 100 years, and then we'll be able to exist for hundreds of billions of yeaesm and even when the Univertse dies we might be able to create another one, and exist for trillions of centuries ;-<
And let's not get too flamed about all this. Let's try not to destroy each other's beliefs either, they will liekly change anyway, at least for some of us . . . there's no need to impose your convictions on someone else
Finally, hope to see ya guys on b.net and whoop your crazy, zealious little arses, rofl
PS How many of you guys are islam? I want to make fun of you in my next quickly upcoming br ;] | | #85 AdmiralPlinko[38196] | | clarc-dhcp-147.cc.rochester.edu | Need aspirin..... I guess I have to take over for Bane now...
As to the remarks about "immediate purpose" and "ultimate purpose", the purpose of my life is to do whatever work God put me here to do. When that's done, I'll die and go to heaven which is a lot better than where I am now. In fact, because I know I will go to heaven, I am not afraid of dying and actually look forward to it. "Then why don't you just kill yourself?" you might say. Well, then I won't have completed my work here and will have wasted what time I had. So you see, my immediate and ultimate purposes are the same: To finish my task here and then go upstairs for an extended vacation.
Now, as for religion controlling people, it is true that many become Christians out of a fear of going to Hell. There's nothing wrong with that, Hell is a very bad place and I don't want to see anyone have to go there. Many of you have said that the "rules" of Christianity are there to control people. I admit that Christianity has many rules, and no one could ever follow them all. This is where Jesus comes in. When He died, He paid the penalty for breaking the rules; not for Himself, but for everyone. If we screw up, we admit it, ask to be forgiven, and try not to do it again. Now why don't we go killing people if the penalty for doing so was paid? Because no one becomes a Christian if they want to go kill people! They become Christians because their lives are messed up, or they want something more to life than just "have fun while you can". A religion can't force someone to follow rules, because it can't force that person to follow the religion. Christians choose to become Christians, and if they don't like the rules they can leave. For us, it's not the rules that are important, it's knowing God.
The Crusades were started because the Ottoman Empire was expanding and the European monarchs were worried that if they didn't do something they would eventually be invaded. Their problem was that the army was composed of a bunch of serfs that never moved more than a mile away from home, and wouldn't be too worried about something a thousand miles away. To get the serfs riled up and willing to fight, the monarchs described the Ottomans as infidels invading the Holy Land and declared a holy war. So the serfs got really mad, left to fight the Ottomans, and did some really nasty things along the way. I'm not saying any of this was a good thing, but the religious aspect of it was only a ploy to motivate the troops.
If you're still reading this, you will probably need aspirin too.....
To jump into this whole science thing, yes, time is an inherent part of this universe, and therefore confined to this universe. That's how God can see the future. He exists outside of space-time. Eternity is not infinite time, but absence of time, and the appearances and disappearances of angels could be the result of these beings entering and leaving our universe. Part of the incomprehensibility of God is the incomprehensibility of the absence of time and the existence of higher dimensions. Is that scientific enough for you?
Now, finally, is Genesis a metaphor? Genesis says the Earth was made in a day. Atheism and evolution say it was made in a billion or so years of condensation and cooling. So which one is right? Much of the Earth's crust is made of granite. Granite is a very special type of mineral, because it cannot be artificially created. The reason is the polonium it contains. In all granite, the granules of polonium are surrounded by halos, which are produced by the decay of the polonium. The problem is that polonium has an extremely short half-life, and the granite must solidify before all the polonium has decayed to form the halos. Calculations have shown that in order to form the granite in its crust, the Earth must have cooled in no more than 90 minutes. Therefore, Genesis must be literal, and if you have a problem with it you're just not reading it right. If you give me some time, I can track down where I found this stuff and give you the sources to prove I didn't just make it up.
And Bizkit, are you the same Limp_Bizkit666 that's always spamming the christian chat rooms on Yahoo? I recognize the email address. | | #86 AdmiralPlinko[38197] | | clarc-dhcp-147.cc.rochester.edu | That was way too long.
| | #87 <font color=yellow> |]agomar[38204] | | static-81.itcanada.com | Kewl how we all have different beliefs and proofs ;D
WTG Pinko! Yahoo! | | #88 AdmiralPlinko[38216] | | clarc-dhcp-147.cc.rochester.edu | | I'm starting to hate Yahoo. It's as slow as AOL now, with just as many lamers. | | #89 TheRottenDog[38232] | | ts1-6.amery.spacestar.net | | I found <a href=http://home.talkcity.com/librarydr/eztoamuse/>this cool site</a> today, it's interesting to atheists and should be interesting to everyone. Have a nice day guys. | | #90 wallabystein[38237] | | ip30.victoria4.dialup.canada.psi.net | | I hope I get a hundred comments | | #91 TheRottenDog[38244] | | ts1-6.amery.spacestar.net | I'll help if you want..
| | #92 skittles.[38250] | | tnt-1-179-56k.ashland.zoomnet.net | | Did I win yet? | | #93 skittles.[38251] | | tnt-1-179-56k.ashland.zoomnet.net | | Did I win yet? | | #94 skittles.[38252] | | tnt-1-179-56k.ashland.zoomnet.net | | Did I win yet? | | #95 skittles.[38253] | | tnt-1-179-56k.ashland.zoomnet.net | | Did I win yet? | | #96 skittles.[38254] | | tnt-1-179-56k.ashland.zoomnet.net | | Did I win yet? | | #97 skittles.[38256] | | tnt-1-179-56k.ashland.zoomnet.net | Nice BR, congrats on 100+ msg's and how the hell did we go from that BR to a god exist war?
My opinion on god's existence is...
If there isnt a god then thats all fine and dandy, but if there is and you have been living your life like there isnt. Then your screwed...
(mom told me that the other day after i declared he didnt exist, ever since I have had a small belief in him and I plan to start attending church again)... | | #98 Bane-The-Feared[38279] | | acs00asm.asm.bellsouth.net | | Cool, I'm really happy to hear that skittles., seriously. :) | | #99 [38280] | | rliv242.infocom.com | Shame on you Wally, playing the God card for comments...
whore... :P
Dref | | #100 wallabystein[38283] | | ip113.victoria4.dialup.canada.psi.net | I'm such a comment whore.. next report I'm gonna poke fun at every minority out there and get three hundred comments. Seriously, though, this has been a great comments section. Maby I should put something in each BR about religion or politics or anything and get these huge discussions going. Really, there were only twenty something different people who commented, but with this discussion thing, they all posted a whole lot, and almost all the posts were over one paragraph.
Pretty cool stuff,
wallaby | | #101 Zephyr[38298] | | proxy.xtra.co.nz | Skittles: I don't believe anyone should prostitute their minds to religion for the possibility that God exists, only to avoid the possibility of hell. The God debate should be concerned with truth, not fear. To believe otherwise is to believe God is a terrorist with the ultimate weapon, the hostage taker of souls.
Admiral Plinko: What is your immediate purpose, that, should you die, would be unfulfilled? This is important: how can you determine what is God's will and what isn't? Hitler, Mother Teresa, Mohandas K. Gandhi and the Spanish Inquisition all claimed to be serving God's will. If so many different activities and goals can be "justified" as being God's will, and there is no reliable method for distinguishing acting according to God's will and mistakenly thinking that one is acting according to God's will, then the claim to be acting according to God's will becomes meaningless.
Also, please post your sources for the granite idea, if you can find them. Note that there are many more indicators that the Earth is several billion years old than that it is 6000 years old (Genesis). Dinosaurs, for example. The fact the light reaches earth from stars millions of light years away shows the universe is certainly old.
Wallabystein: I just want to say that the report was excellent and funny, cos I haven't said that yet, and congratulations for sparking this debate.
I notice that everyone commenting is either approximately Christian or approximately atheist, which is odd because there are very few atheists in the world. Does this show Christians and atheists are most likely to play Starcraft?
Are there any Muslims/Jews/Buddhists/Hindus/other following this debate? | | #102 Carni[38299] | | 203.96.152.188 | I've been reading the comments and now i have to post.
I consider myself Christian without knowing whether God exists or not. I am Christian because I believe the core values that Christians believe in will create a higher net pleasure for the world. I don't go to church because when i did i didn't like it and I didn't like the way the priest wass regarded as the be all and end all to religion. My parents haven't tried to force me to be religious but i think that if everyone really looks at Christianity they see values they identify with and respect. I am perfectly happy believing in Christianity with the values Christians stand for as my motive.
Christianity also makes people safe, if someone wants to think someone (God) is watching over them than that's good too, even if the divine being is imaginary, it makes them have a higher net pleasure.
Finally, criminals often claim forgiveness and often turn into god-fearing Christians. If the sole reason they are not commiting crimes is because they want to go to heaven then I am happy with that, it means a higher net pleasure for everyone, they can sleep at night, and i can sleep without my gun next to my bed.
The report was good, i don't think the introduction was offensive because the Bible-basher was trying to get someone who wasn't interested to join his group. I would just tell him to go away. Everyone must realise that jerks exist in all forms, even Christian ones.
Booya!
| | #103 Carni[38304] | | 203.96.152.188 | I've been reading the comments and now i have to post.
I consider myself Christian without knowing whether God exists or not. I am Christian because I believe the core values that Christians believe in will create a higher net pleasure for the world. I don't go to church because when i did i didn't like it and I didn't like the way the priest wass regarded as the be all and end all to religion. My parents haven't tried to force me to be religious but i think that if everyone really looks at Christianity they see values they identify with and respect. I am perfectly happy believing in Christianity with the values Christians stand for as my motive.
Christianity also makes people safe, if someone wants to think someone (God) is watching over them than that's good too, even if the divine being is imaginary, it makes them have a higher net pleasure.
Finally, criminals often claim forgiveness and often turn into god-fearing Christians. If the sole reason they are not commiting crimes is because they want to go to heaven then I am happy with that, it means a higher net pleasure for everyone, they can sleep at night, and i can sleep without my gun next to my bed.
The report was good, i don't think the introduction was offensive because the Bible-basher was trying to get someone who wasn't interested to join his group. I would just tell him to go away. Everyone must realise that jerks exist in all forms, even Christian ones.
Booya!
| | #104 Zephyr[38330] | | proxy.xtra.co.nz | That's fair enough Carni, but instead of calling yourself a Christian who isn't sure about God but agrees with the morals, how about just a moral person? I too agree with most of the more important Christian morals, but I wouldn't call myself Christian. The morals, as we all know, contradict, and I find it best to make them up for myself.
Most Christians don't follow the morals of the Bible:
Lev. 20:13: If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have com-mitted an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.
Very few Christians still believe homosexuality should be punishable by death (and execution contradicts the Sixth Commandment).
I think the most important facet of any religion is the existence of the deity, and the morals follow. This debate is on the existence of God.
If Christianity makes people act morally, that is definitely a good thing. But the religion may still be wrong. I am arguing not against Christian morals, but against the existence of the Christian god.
Incidentally, Christian morals have not necessarily affected people's actions in a positive way:
- the Crusades (He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed - Exodus 22:20)
- the Inquisition (Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live - Exodus 22:18)
- martydom (if the Christian God doesn't exist) - a waste of life.
The net effect of Christianity on morality, I think, has, upon reflection, probably been positive maybe. But that doesn't mean that God exists.
| | #105 AdmiralPlinko[38349] | | clarc-dhcp-157.cc.rochester.edu | Zephyr: Things like the Spanish Inquisition and Hitler went against Biblical morals and values. Who was it that said something about religion controlling people? I don't want to read through this again.... Anyway, many political leaders have attempted to use religion to control the people. Unfortunately, Christianity was one of those religions, and in fact the one most frequently used. Hitler was not a Christian, he used Christianity to deceive people into following him. His actions clearly went against Biblical principles and therefore could not have been doing the work of God. You need to ask yourself: "If God told us that it was wrong to do something, would he ask us to do it later?" If someone claims to be doing God's will, but their actions contradict the Bible, then they are either misguided or lying. The same goes for the Spanish Inquisition. God never said "kill the sinners", he said "love the sinners, not the sin". One of the most important parts of being a Christian is sharing our faith. We shouldn't force others into it, or shove scripture down their throats, although some Christians mistakenly do this; but we state our case, explain who we are and what we stand for, and let others decide for themselves whether to believe us or not. The reason is that we care about others. We know what hell is like, and how much happier people are when they know God, and we genuinely want to help those who don't believe. The Spanish Inquisition was the mass persecution and murder of Jews and Muslims by the Spanish government. This clearly goes against Biblical teachings, because by killing non-Christians they were just sending them to hell faster! Christians are supposed to bring people to heaven, and the Inquisition did just the opposite. So to answer your questions, If you want to know if someone is doing God's will, check if what they are doing is supported by the Bible. If it's not, then it's not the will of God. As for me personally, I don't know yet. There's no instruction manual for life, and when it's time for me to do something, as long as still wish to do His will, God will tell me or make it impossible for me to do otherwise. I don't yet know what I am here to do, but that is what faith is for. Maybe this discussion is part of it :]
I need to email some people about the granite thing. It was on some kind of video thing and I might need to borrow it to get the references down, but I am working on it.
Sorry again for the long post, but this is important to me and your questions deserve answers. | | #106 wallabystein[38362] | | ip252.victoria4.dialup.canada.psi.net | | long posts are fine.. just use paragraphs so they're easier to read. | | #107 AdmiralPlinko[38366] | | clarc-dhcp-157.cc.rochester.edu | | It does kind of give me a headache to reread it.... | | #108 Zephyr[38511] | | proxy.xtra.co.nz | The problem is, killing witches definitely is a Christian moral. It's right there in the Bible:
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" - Exodus 22:18
It is my understanding that most Christians don't believe witches exist anyway, so already they are choosing what to believe and ignoring God's direct command. However, if you met a proven psychic, would you kill him/her?
Of course, that command contradicts the Sixth Commandment. The reason for this (if God exists) is either:
a) He changed his mind (shows He is imperfect; He made the wrong decision at first)
b) Either Moses or the Exodus guy was lying
Assuming Moses was telling the truth (because the Ten Commandments seem to be the most quoted and followed of God's laws at the moment), should we disregard all of Exodus? Or just the parts we don't agree with? It throws all of Exodus into doubt, and Exodus isn't the only contradiction with the Ten Commandments.
The actual witchfinders of the Spanish Inquisition (or witchfinders anywhere) believed they were doing God's will - their justification was that line of Exodus (and others, I think). Note that the Ten Commandments were not always so fashionable as they are now. Since the Inquistors' actions were sanctioned by God, He would not allow the wrong decision to be made, surely? An estimated two million people were executed and usually tortured as witches between 1400 and 1700, under direct command of the Bible. | | #109 [38559] | | 208.196.35.239 | Plinko,
You said, "<i>This clearly goes against Biblical teachings, because by killing non-Christians they were just sending them to hell faster!</i>"
Are you saying that all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Indians, etc. who don't convert to Christianity will burn in hell?
Gosh, that's kind of cruel, especially since a lot of people in those faiths probably never heard the christian message... :(
Dref | | #110 Zephyr[38682] | | proxy.xtra.co.nz | I just wrote an excellent essay for English on this topic, and came across some frightening quotes:
“No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.” – President George Bush
“Radicals and atheists are destroying families.” – Hillary Rodham-Clinton
Already horrified by researching the Inquisition (much worse than I had previously thought) these two chilling statements are sickening examples of real discrimination towards those of a certain religious view. The effect of the statements is to scare people away from atheism, and to alienate atheists and intimidate them from public debate. That the leaders of the most influential country on Earth would publicly humiliate and attack atheists in this way is utterly reprehensible. I am an atheist but I have the decency and moral fortitude not to impugn or denounce anyone’s religion in a false and sensationalist manner. This time, Christians have met their match. Two thousand years ago the Romans persecuted Christians, forcing them to conduct their rituals in secret and enabling them to present themselves as the good struggling under an evil tyrannical regime to the people. Now the positions are reversed, and atheism will rise from the depths of oppression. There will be martyrs. | | #111 Rhovanion.[38706] | | dialup-242-97.bol.net.in | Kewl discussion! Excuse any spelling or grammar errors I'm not english.
Comment #65:
"Everything we do is for survival. why do you sleep? so you don't die. why do you eat? so you don't die. why do you need cloths? so you don't die of embarassment, or cold...hehe. why do you need to work? so you don't die. why do you have anything? so you don't die. why don't you die? SO THAT YOU CAN PROCREATE!"
Why do you try to have fun?
"If you are so sure of your ultimate goal, why don't you ask an atheist to kill you? then you will have achived your ultimate goal, and not worry about pathetic "immediate" goal, right??"
So if the ultimate goal is to procreate(see above) why dont you search for someone who thinks alike and "procreate" all day?^^
It might be true for animals but humans don't act all on instinct.
Comment #88:"God is perfect"
If god is perfect humans would be perfect too. Why? If god created something which is not perfect he wouldnt be perfect himself. Since humans are all different and there is only one "perfect" humans cant be perfect and god cant be either.
"God must be incomprehendable"
If god is incomprehendable how can you give him attributes by human definition("perfect"). You can't comprehend but you dare to judge?
Just wanted to add that ;).
| | #112 Zephyr[38837] | | proxy.xtra.co.nz | The nature of 'fun' is interesting in itself. When children play they are practicing for future work. Because male and female personality traits evolved this way, boys play with guns, fire and...Starcraft to practise for their future life of hunting/gathering/fighting, and girls play with Barbie dolls and makeup to practise for their future life of raising a family and pleasing her husband (hideous stereotyping I know). Fortunately, Western civilization has moved on from these archetypes, but our genetic make-up hasn't.
The point is, Rhovanion, that when people have fun it is an innate impulse to practise survival skills. | | #113 wallabystein[38845] | | cust31.tnt1.dial.vic1.uunet.ca | | haha to please their husbands.. you're lucky no girls play starcraft to read that! | | #114 Zephyr[38869] | | proxy.xtra.co.nz | I know and I'm not happy with it either. I'm trying to say this as delicately as possible: male/female stereotyping is mildly supported by genetics. Don't flame me! All I'm saying is only the difference between estrogen and testosterone: a greater tendency towards physical expression of anger is a male personality trait, for example, and there is a common maternal instinct in most females. The difference is of course extremely varied amongst people and cultures, as can be seen by the small but significant number of girls playing Starcraft.
Anyway...pleasing their husbands. Since, historically, women have had a subservient position in almost all cultures, women have had to rely on men in a variety of ways to survive, procreate, etc. Evolution has cemented the stereotypes and will probably never erase them fully, as there is no threat to survival or procreation from the influence of the hormones.
In case anyone has completely the wrong idea, I totally support gender equality in a manner so innate I have never been so boorish as to question it, and am only stating biological facts. It is not my view that females should raise a family or that males should do the fighting; I only point out that that is the historical context. | | #115 Paradigm[38927] | | 1Cust57.tnt5.det3.da.uu.net | | Geez. Kind of excessive 8(. | | #116 Limp_Bizkit666[38955] | | cerebus.smc.edu | Hmmmm, i don't know if anyone will read this, for it has been a week past it's debut, but here goes anyway...
i just thought it was VERY stupid to make your point as a theist by using the Bible as a reference to an atheist....
i mean, how are you going to quote the Bible to justify something, when the ones listening doesn't even believe in teh Bible itself????
it's like saying to a Christian, Budha said this, and Budha said that....that's absurd...
anyways, i think it's going crazy..
byeya
p.s-i still love, not gay ass "wuv" you...hehe | | #117 Paradigm[39117] | | 1Cust140.tnt1.det3.da.uu.net | I'm not sure if you were referring to me, but Zephyr posted some Biblical quotes indicating that they contradicted, therefore the Bible could not be used as a source of truth. I merely took him at face value, hopefully showed that the Bible is not inconsistent - he took the first step in using the Bible as a potential source of truth (which is fine by me =) ). So, actually, I just followed him on that one. Otherwise, I agree, it would be kind of pointless to do that. It would be like calling someone stupid for something they hadn't done...? =P
| | #118 Paradigm[39376] | | 1Cust11.tnt2.det3.da.uu.net | Well Zephyr =)…looks like it’s just the two of us right now. I must admit, I am really quite enjoying this =). I have not yet found many people who are as interested in what I’m saying and yet completely disagree with me (pleasantly I might add =) ). Of course, I could have stopped after the first part of the sentence…but I think that’s enough self-deprecation.
There are at least two things that need to be addressed before I really hit the rest of your comments.
1. Who are we before God?
2. The New Testament and the Old Testament – how do these relate?
Who are we before God?
This is absolutely crucial to understand, before debating anything else – these are the fundamentals of faith. Coincidentally, if you can agree with these things, you are essentially someone who is Christian (i.e. this is addressing “I am not deserving of hell.”) The second point addresses how to live as a Christian (i.e. understanding the Bible, at least how I personally understand it)
I use my faith to explain hell because I think there is a misconception of what hell is and what faith is. Only by understanding how these things all happen can we really finish talking about everything else.
Who is God? The two characteristics that really come into play at this point are His holiness and His love. If God had only love, then anything would be okay, for we would be forgiven for all things, even the most horrific things that we do to one another and to Him. If God had only holiness, nothing we did and can do and ever will do (or not do) can satisfy His holiness. That is because we fundamentally have a desire to do things (at one time or another) that are evil and we *do* things that are evil. That can range from kicking Betty Sue for no reason, to looking at a girl with lust, to snapping at your friend, to hitting your mom, to adultery, to murder, to whatever else. From “small” sin to “enormous” sin, these *all* separate us from God infinitely because He is holy. And holiness cannot tolerate even the slightest sin.
Now God, I believe, is perfect. And God does not display only one aspect of Himself at a time – He desires to (and has) reconcile us to His perfect justice/holiness as well as His perfect love/grace so that He can be with us and we can be with Him. That was Jesus’s mission – to allow us to walk with God again. John 3:16-17 “For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. ***For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him***.”
From the very beginning, from the moment of original sin when men and women were separated from God, God had already intended a plan for us to be reconciled to Him (Gen 3:15). God’s love did not begin with the advent of Christ – but His love was fulfilled by Christ. (We know it did not begin with Christ because we look at King David (as one example), who was declared “a man after [God’s] own heart” but broke every one of the Ten Commandments including murder and adultery. Note also that Jesus is descended from the son of that affair – God has tied Jesus’ legacy with our own.) It was Jesus’ death, He who is pure and without sin, that satisfied God’s perfect desire for justice from us. It is His death that currently and forever stands as payment for all the sins that we have already, are, and will commit.
I think I need to further this point. An argument that occurs in churches today is works vs. grace (i.e. you need to do certain things (works) to be saved by God vs. you don’t need to do anything, just believe (grace)). I think both are true. Like God’s aspects of complete holiness and complete love that are completely contradictory and are yet made perfectly resonant, so are works and grace because they are two aspects of the same thing. Faith.
God’s love is complete. There is absolutely nothing you can do to earn it because none of us deserve it (refer to His holiness – none of us are holy). However, God has already extended it to everyone, so anyone and everyone make partake of it (refer to His love – we all have it). It *is* that simple, but…not quite, for if it ended there, then we would again only have God’s love. But if we truly have accepted Jesus into our lives, and truly understood what His love for us meant, then there must be some change in our lives (Gal 5:22-25). There simply must. You cannot realize that God has absolutely forgiven you and loves you completely and wholly – and remain unchanged. You really haven’t understood what you’ve gotten if that’s true.
For the way we live our lives reflects the love that we have received. If we were selfish and took refuge in God’s love only, we would attempt to “use” grace to do whatever we wanted – “I’ll be forgiven in the end.” If we were paranoid and fearful of His holiness, we would work our butts off to “earn” our grace – “He’s watching me.” Neither selfishness nor fear are what God desires because neither truly reflect what we have received from God.
So
1. The Bible points us to our sin, our fallen-ness and our propensity to do evil.
2. It also points to people throughout the Bible who lead imperfect lives, and yet are called righteous by God. From Abraham, to Moses (who wrote Exodus btw), to King David (Heb. 11), to John, to Peter, to Paul – all of them were sinners. Yet they are the role models that we have – we do not follow them in their sin, but we can learn in what ways they are righteous and imitate that (i.e. we don’t need to be perfect because someone else was – the Christ).
3. Finally, the Bible points to the way to complete righteousness, the way of hope and freedom from being held accountable for our sins – Jesus.
But to intellectually answer your question about hell, I’ll quote myself – “ultimately, each person has to make his own choice.” The choice away from God is hell. Hell is not a place of punishment; it is only “existence without God’s presence.” Hell is only the complete accordance with the desire to not-chose God. God, however, is perfect love, the source of all love and all Good. Hell is therefore existence without any love or any Good whatsoever (i.e. without God). And yes, that’s a pretty unhappy thing.
But I think if you have understood why I believe in God, you’ll see that God has taken every measure, every step towards you, except forcing you to believe in Him. Taking that step towards Him (even raising your eyebrow in consent) crosses the entire chasm to Him. Understand that you are not choosing God or hell – you are choosing God or not choosing God. There are natural consequences to your choice, but I’m not sure why it would be any other way (otherwise, the decision would have no meaning).
So I’ve made my faith clear (if not, ask =) ), and the reasons why I believe what I do. That’s my rebuttal against divine terrorism, against needing to fear hell in the smallest bit, and against the need to “play your cards right”. Grace is for all, you just have to accept it as the gift that it is; logically, if you leave it on your doorstep, you are not accepting it. I feel confident enough to say that a different interpretation of the Bible would be a misunderstanding of the Bible.
Note: once you believe, you’re not called to be perfect. If you are earnestly following God, the path will be laid down before you. It will be a steep path at times, and you will fall, but it will be one you can follow, for God will be leading the way. It is only by God’s grace that any of us can climb the path, so this is why we should keep to the planks in our own eyes. (more below)
Skittles’ comment: that’s the basic Pascal’s wager.
If there is no God, and you do whatever you want, you’re
okay.
If there is no God, and you believe and follow what “He”
wants anyways, you’re okay.
If God is, and you do whatever you want, you’re in trouble.
If God is, and you believe and follow what He wants, you’re
in Heaven.
So it’s when God exists that things get shaken up. I do have to amend what I said before, you reminded me of something important that I had stated not-quite-correctly. Fear *is* a fundamental part of knowing who God is. Every single person who has seen God (or even seen an angel) in the Bible either 1) falls to his/her feet as if dead from fear (Rev 1:17) or 2) believes they are going to be destroyed for coming into His presence because they were unclean (Judges 6:22-23). Proverbs 1:7 is “fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.”
However, we need not fear the unknown, hell or anything except God. “For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline.” (2 Tim 1:7) Fear of the creator of the universe is justified and deserved; fear of what He will do to us is not. The Bible is very clear that trust in His mercy is never unanswered.
>"Blind faith is...what every religion is based on as far as I'd say..."
Which religion do you choose then? I won't go heavily into this, Paradigm, because you may not agree with Bane that Christianity is a matter of blind faith.
I think ultimately, each person does have to make that step of faith –believing not because there is proof but because there is evidence. If I were Bane, I could quote John 11:6: “No one comes to the Father except through me.” This is the reason why other religions are excluded. It is only through Jesus that you can come to God (since only Christians believe that Jesus is who He said He was). I’m not sure what this says about other religions except that they do not lead to God. Where that leaves them I do not know (see far below).
For my second point: New Testament vs. (?) Old Testament. I’ve noticed that the vast majority of your quotations have come from the Old Testament. That’s fine…but I think I need to clarify/expand my point that I made last time. I had stated that sleeping with your father’s wife is something that is abhorrent and deserving of death by OT (Lev 20:11). However, in the NT, there is something…different afoot – such a man was not stoned, but expelled from the church. But he is welcomed back upon his repentence (1 Cor somewhere). In terms of food and drink, we’re not accountable for those things anymore (1 Cor 11:1-18), not because they are useless, but because that is not how God asks for us to show obedience. Jesus Himself had said that when we even *look* upon another woman with lust we are committing adultery (Mt 5:28), and that if a woman remarried, she was committing adultery (and her ex-husband was forcing her to in order survive– the position of women is explained later). Adultery is something condemnable by stoning by OT (Lev 20:10). He spoke with a Samaritan woman but Samaritans were considered a bastard race (former Israelites) by the Israelites, and were to be avoided at all costs. He knew she had four prior husbands and was living with a fifth non-husband (Jn 4). And yet, He indicates that salvation is for her as well.
If I did not understand that Jesus acts in love, and came for the forgiveness of people, and only understood the holy side of God, that would seem like a real contradiction. He’s talking to someone who is “not deserving” of grace by her race. Then He *gives* grace to a sinner among sinners. That seems really really arbitrary and very difficult to understand. Why her? Why not someone else more deserving? We can understand when we realize that again, grace is something no one deserves, but we all receive (Ro 5:8 – But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.)
The Israelites were the vehicle with which God chose to mete out His justice (Gen 15:16). He set up their government for them, and gave them laws to follow. However, they were not able to hold His commands, even the most basic and simplest ones (i.e. upon entering the Promised Land, they were to destroy everything that an enemy had – the very first Israelites who attacked did not do this. Judges 1-3). Soon afterwards, they fell into depravity, having temple prostitutes, sacrificing their kids, sacrificing to other gods, sacrificing their kids to other gods, etc.
We’re called to something different in the NT. We are no longer the means through which God will enforce His holy will and justice, and we no longer live spiritually under those laws. We are no longer called to kill those who do not obey the laws of God. “You have heard that it was said, ‘eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, …if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well [the most valuable and practical piece of clothing to own those times]. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” (Mt 5:38-41).
The laws in the OT show us what evil is. But clearly, through those examples given above, the punishment that is attached to those evils is no longer enforced – that is, no longer enforced by us. Jesus was not only Savior but also Judge. He who knew and knows what we face (Mt 4) is the one who will also judge us in the end. So the punishments you were talking about (mainly stoning), are not to be carried out by us. Understanding who Jesus was, how He acted, what He asks people to do when they sin – these things all inform us about how to love one another, as He loved us.
In addition, we are no longer living under Jewish law, not only spiritually but also physically. That is, we are commanded to “submit [ourselves] to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.” (Ro 13:1)
Finally, it is God to whom we must ultimately be accountable for. “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside, ‘Expel the wicked man from among you.’ “ (1 Cor 5:12-13) This Greek word for judge (krino) is mostly used in terms of eternal judgment (i.e. claiming to know whether a person is under the grace of Jesus or not). So those who are not followers of Jesus (atheists, Muslims, etc)…I don’t know that it is within our realm to claim that they go to hell. I’m not sure though. The only person that I *can* judge is someone who has also given himself to the authority of God. This is because they have chosen to walk towards Him and it is part of my responsibility to see that they get there (as it is their responsibility to help me get there, and have an equal right to judge me). I’m not convinced that even this kind of judging is about condemnation and hell, but rather, pointing out sin in another person’s life (as I fully expect them to do for me). “Love the sinner, hate the sin” just as Jesus Himself did.
Bringing all these things together, I think it is reasonable to say that killing is not a method ever sanctioned or even hinted at by Christ, nor something that we are to be held to. Instead, we are called to love those people around us, as Christ loves them. I saw you mentioned somewhere about women – that is a perfect example. Ephesians 5:22-26. “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, etc…. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy etc….” In other words, in a time when men often had several wives, divorced them at will (i.e. left them to die because such women would not be married again and women could make no income), and had concubines, Christian men were and are called to love our wives as Christ loved all of us. Love them enough to die for them, enough to live every day for them.
>My point about the Bible as a moral code was that it gave license to persecute various people in the name of God.
There are pretty much three options then:
1. everyone needs to understand what the Bible says. It will only be then that we can all prevent the improper use of the Bible.
2. chuck it out
3. status quo, which I think you find intolerable.
I think a question to ask is whether the Bible is truly a source of truth and justice and love. Something to reflect on then is that all things can be used for good and evil, mostly evil. (I’ve said this before)
I would argue that the Bible has been fundamental to the understanding of our laws today in the United States (i.e. the Ten Commandments adorn the Supreme Court). Your understanding of what is moral and what is not moral almost certainly has its foundation upon the Bible, as did mine before I became Christian. Only within the last seventy years or so (if even that) has the Bible lost its primacy in moral teaching – parents as old as my parents are still the products of that teaching (they’re around 50, I’m 24, been Christian for 3). I am the product of their teaching and hence have also learned Christian values (except my parents are from Korea =P. Although my mom went to a missionary school, so I still count I guess)
Put differently, if I were an atheist, what are the rules by which I should conduct myself that are *not* found in the Bible? What is moral? By what authority does that have a claim on anyone else? How do you know what’s right? How do you get a common consensus on what’s right?
Our very understanding of morality has come from the Bible. If there were no Bible, I would have no reason not to do whatever I wanted. If there were nothing to inform me of what was wrong, then yes, I would use whatever I had at my power to get as much power as I could get. I would even use the Bible for my own ends. That I even know it is wrong to misuse the Word of God is from that very Word. Evil will happen whether the Bible is read or not. Whether we know it as evil or just as a normal acceptable part of life does depend upon a legitimate source of truth, which I claim is the Bible. Judges 17-21 is a horrific yet perfectly logical result of what happens when people do not follow God and do not have a source of truth.
Finally….
to address what you’ve asked regarding striking or cursing your parents….
Exodus 21:15,17 are both about honoring your parents. Since we are not held to Jewish law, we are not held to killing those who do those things. But I do think there needs to be clarification regarding those verses. The word for attacked is nakah, used 501 times. The vast majority of the translations are something like struck down, kills, conquered, destroy, assassinated, stabbed, slaughtering, annihilate, beats, flogged, overthrow, etc. This is not some small little thing that is happening, this is someone attempting to seriously injure or kill his parents.
I don’t believe the understanding of curse is necessarily what it is today (more like asking God’s punishment upon them); even if it is swearing at them, I think that the severity is lost on us. We’re surrounded by swearing, but if you really think about what you’re saying to someone when you swear at them, you gain some understanding. If you think about your kids swearing at you, you gain a little more I think. When I say “D--- you”, I’m asking God to take His love and blessing off you.
These are not small things that the Bible is talking about – these are things that essentially deny your relationship with your parents. There are parents that are better the further away they are, but most parents have a measure of decency and love towards you, who work 9 to 5 to keep your family together and happy, reading BRs late at night. These are people you are to respect and cherish, not curse and strike. OT laws are primarily negative in nature (don’t do this, don’t do that – eight or nine out of the Ten Commandments). NT laws are primarily positive (love him, love her). Likewise, it is not sufficient to refrain from evil, we’re called to *do* good.
One final example (also might make sense of why people are “Bible-thumpers”). Let’s say walking away from God is like walking off a cliff. I can see it, because I’ve seen the cliff and almost fallen off myself (I’m a believer). But you don’t see the cliff. I would do almost anything in my power to keep you from falling off the cliff. Jesus did the “everything” and jumped off to show you where it was. | | #119 Zephyr[39655] | | proxy.xtra.co.nz | I, too, am enjoying this debate. However, it has snowballed, spilling into reality, until my life seems to be a mess of arguments: with you on the existence of God, with my Christian/agnostic friend on the definition of Christian, with my fundamentalist friend on whether homosexuality is wrong (more on this later), with my Classics teacher on whether the morality of homosexuality is more important than Alexander the Great's family tree...
I disagree with your idea of hell. I have no quotes to back me up, but my impression of hell - and I think most people's - is one of infinite torment. We all know the words: sulphur and brimstone, hellfire, Satan, eternal torment without respite. I don't know where these words came from (I'm assuming the Bible) and my understanding is that this aspect of hell - evil - is emphasized. Hell is evil - immoral. A lack of God (assuming all that is good comes from God) would be amoral. So hell is not merely the lack of God, but lack plus something else - the Devil? When one sells his/her soul to the Devil, the soul is later exposed to actual evil in the form of torture. Right?
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, eternal damnation for liking the girl next door. And what about turning the other cheek? Does that rule apply to God Himself? That quotation, I think, implies that ANY harm they do to you is not deserving of retaliation...but you've said hell is not a punishment...which I disagree with...I must wait for your answer.
Define evil. Does evil itself exist or is it the mere lack of goodness? I believe evil as a concept definitely exists rather than as a lack of a concept - the difference between not helping a person in need and taking advantage of this person's vulnerability.
I understand what you're saying about God's compromise between love and justice, and if I were a Christian, I would be happy with that explanation. I'm not, of course, and I still protest that the comparatively little evil I've done does not deserve eternal torment...which refers to the previous point...which you have denied...I must wait for your answer.
I'm not convinced by the works vs. grace contradiction. God's decision must not be arbitrary, so he must have criteria. Does belief alone allow entry to heaven? Standing room only? How about works - alone - without belief? If works means being generally moral, that might apply to me... My understanding is that you definitely need belief, though, so already we see that belief is more important than works. Is that a wise distinction on God's part? I would rather have a world full of moral atheists than a world full of God-fearing witchhunters, and I hope you would too.
I don't see that God has taken every step toward me. He could have made some things in the universe impossible to explain without His existence, or better still, provided proof and maybe started a radio station, or at least a newsletter. But proof denies faith, and Christianity is based on faith. I'll get to that later.
Also, He could have stopped Christian brutality throughout history and made Christianity more palatable, untainted by the blood of millions of martyrs (consider that there are probably more people sacrificed to the witchhunters than Christians were killed in the first few oppressed centuries after Christ). And He could have removed the other religions so as not to confuse people as to which one to put their (blind or reasoned) faith in. He could have told everyone - millions, maybe billions of people never heard of Jesus Christ, even in the last two millennia.
I'm not sure - does God interfere with the affairs of Man? I don't understand the rules; I've not seen his influence in any major world events save Jesus, who was not the Son of God anyway. To take an example where God, if he were thinking in the best interests of morality, should have helped: WW2 was won because America joined up and propelled the counter-offensive against Germany, and then nuked Japan. America had been attacked by Japan and provoked into war, and nuclear technology had been around since the 1930s. No divine influence there. Unless, of course, he really did want to wipe out six million Jews (unbelievers), homosexuals (abominations), blacks (=Samaritan equivalents?) and other targets. On the other hand, He is supposed to grant prayers, isn't He? My Anglican primary school would pray once a week for peace in wherever the world was having trouble at the time. Are these sorts of prayers effective?
“For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline.”
Despite it being from the Bible, I would estimate the majority of humans would be better called timid than loving, powerful and self-disciplined. I also think fear of the unknown and of things except God is justified. Death, pain and loss for example.
It seems that God changed His mind on morality between the Old and New Testament. Changed for the better, I think, by my moral code, but it still shows he is imperfect. Surely He should have been right the first time?
Rereading your paragraph on judging those within/without the church, it seems to imply that those outside may still be allowed to heaven? If they are not Christian, but you can't be sure that God will reject them, then presumably some of those outside can get into heaven on basis of merit?
What should be done with the double-edged sword that is the Bible, applicable to good and evil? I say chuck it out. Start over again with a new set of human rights, laws, and provision for alteration when relevant - the American Constitution. What, from the sole point of view of a moral code, is there to lose? No more misinterpretations, no more contradictions or seeming contradictions, no more feelings of guilt about lust, no more homosexual-bashing, allowed divorce (divorce is of course not a good thing in general, but is intended to be the lesser of two evils).
I deny that the American Constitution was based on the Bible by anything but coincidence. Some moral laws are largely universal; most if not all cultures have laws against murder, theft, assault, etc. These are the laws that enable society to continue functioning somewhat fairly and effectively. That is what morality is. The Bible is just another example of that innate idea being written down, and with so many commands and sets of laws in there it was bound to come up with about ten good ones somewhere.
Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry.
- Thomas Jefferson
You ask: for an atheist, what is morality? I have had the same hideous argument with a fundamentalist friend of mine recently. This, for me, was eye-opening, and I realized how blind I'd been to certain aspects of human nature.
First, this friend, of whose religious beliefs I had known little - I assumed he was practically agnostic and attended a youth group for social reasons - turned out to be a full fundamentalist. When I asked him why he didn't agree with the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, to my surprise, he said he did agree. I asked why - it makes no sense to me. He claimed that all morality came from God, and if God said homosexuals were bad, that was the bottom line, because God said so. It must be right because only God defines morality. If anyone thinks they are defining it, they are deluding themselves and their disagreements are wrong. He then said that, had God not provided the moral code of the Bible, that he would act in a completely evil manner, because he would not know better. This eerily echoes you comment: 'If there were no Bible, I would have no reason not to do whatever I wanted. If there were nothing to inform me of what was wrong, then yes, I would use whatever I had at my power to get as much power as I could get.'
So atheists have no justification for morality, because no-one told them how (note that you're not against homosexuality, I think, so you're already disagreeing with God's definition from some source of morality OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE). You both ASSUME that humans are utterly selfish by nature! Why must it be that way? Is that the creature God created? I don't know how to argue this; I have nothing to declare except that humans are not necessarily not selfish, and I am very shocked to see that questioned. Obviously I was naive. Perhaps herein lies a fundamental difference between an atheist and a Christian: innate morality.
"Not one man in a thousand has either strength of mind of goodness of heart to be an Atheist. I repeat it. Not one man in a thousand has either strength of mind or goodness of heart to be an Atheist." - Samuel Taylor Coleridge
It was disturbing and upsetting to find that my friend, who I had considered extremely open-minded, was in fact utterly close-minded: if God never forbade it, it's OK. This is reflected in an utter honesty of character: he never lied about himself or what he thought, and let others deal with the blows to their egos. What had seemed charming liberalism is in fact mere selfishness unhindered by attention others. I suspect he has not read the Bible only so he will not see anything that contradicts his lifestyle and he doesn't have to choose between his lifestyle and his religion.
I see now the problem with basing your own moral code on ANY outside source are loopholes. There are loopholes in every code, including the legal system. The only loophole-less moral code is a person's own, and the problem with that is that it might not be 'moral' according to the world.
I have another problem: Jesus died in order that all our sins may be forgiven. This makes a poetic, satisfying ideal, but it doesn't really make sense. The American legal system will not deal out punishment to one for another's crime. There is no rational reason for God to forgive any Christian today for the actions of Jesus two thousand years ago. And if forgiving us was God's intention, why couldn't He just do it, without the death of Jesus? He's God - He makes the rules. Is he acting under a higher power? There's no good reason for Jesus to have to die - except that amongst the pressures compelling a person to Christianity is added a debt of gratitude.
Finally, I have found a nasty Thomas Aquinas quote. I'm not entirely sure who Aquinas was, but the quote below makes him a poor standard for an example of an upstanding Christian.
"If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy." - Thomas Aquinas
P.S. I will be going on holiday and I will probably be unable to access a computer for at least six days, so my next reply will be much delayed.
| | #120 wallabystein[39658] | | cust238.tnt1.dial.vic1.uunet.ca | HOLY SHIT GUYS
man, I have never seen longer comments in a BR comment section before, this is amazing.
wallaby | | #121 BLuRReD[39910] | | 209.57.26.2 | i remember way back when this wasnt a church, but a site to hear about others pounding the living shit out of each other, in a perfectly sportsmanlike way of course... Well, hope it gets back to that soon! Until then, i'm still
BLuRReD | | #122 [kp]shibal[40082] | | 211.37.144.233 | good br....
but i think u should really drop the religious comments
cuz some ppl who play sc/bw are christians(including me) and they really dunn like it.... also the fact that the three major religions (islam, christianity, jewism) all believe in a god... most likely the same God. and you all might argue that not all believe in Jesus.... well look at this ,... the quron(or however you spell it), a.k.a. the islam bible states that they (muslims) should respect all religions. thus relating to your comments on Jesus and everyone elses comments about it as well. secondly, Jews also do not believe in Jesus, but you have to notice that they are looking forward to a Jesus-like-figure (messiah) to save them from the "world". although they did not believe he was the messiah they do believe he was a good/great moral teacher. thus also relating to jewism. and for the conclusion, christians believe he is THE saviour and all that other stuff that im sure you guys are annoyed in hearing... but i do hope that what i wrote made u realize how important Jesus really is....
but the rest was great... esp. da drone drop.... -______-; | | #123 Zephyr[40396] | | 203.96.111.202 | I'm writing this in a hurry in Christchurch...suffice to say that it is a city far away from my own Wellington, New Zealand. New Zealand, as all Americans know, is a French-speaking communist city-state perched on the banks of the Nile, deep within the Amazon rainforest, bordering on Scotland and Italy, a nation prone to earthquakes, power shortages and yacht races.
Anyway, in reference to my comment #127, Paradigm (if you still intend to reply), note that it was written at 2.00am on the morning I left so forgive the mistakes and problems there - I seem to have rambled on about fundamentalism and repeated words: 'humans are not necessarily not selfish' should read 'not necessarily selfish'.
Wallabystein: Congratulations. Does anyone know the record for a comment section on br.com? I think this may hold the record for most words, if not most comments. Paradigm probably takes the prize for longest post ever, with 3725 words (Comment #126). Thankyou, Wallabystein, for loaning us the use of your comment section for our religious debate.
Blurred: Agreed - Starcraft forever. But there must be room for religion in our lives aswell. | | #124 Paradigm[40447] | | 1Cust59.tnt2.det3.da.uu.net | lol! i apologize for the length. i've been known to talk way too much over here in MI.
i'll reply soon. i've had a series of finals and the Boards are coming up. time is limited, even for talks of this importance =). = too
blurred: yeah =). (p.s. it's koran i think...not sure though. i don't know that it's even translated into English (it isn't suppposed to be at least)...??
| | #125 Paradigm[41281] | | 1Cust116.tnt5.det3.da.uu.net | Hey Zephyr,
This is somewhat of a more pointed argument on my part…. I hope you will not be offended, and continue this discussion. I don’t think I made some of my original points very clearly, at least not directly to answer your questions. I think it’ll be a little clearer now.
> Define evil. Does evil itself exist or is it the mere lack of goodness? I believe evil as a concept definitely exists rather than as a lack of a concept - the difference between not helping a person in need and taking advantage of this person's vulnerability.
I think neither is good (and that is the primary question, not what is evil). I agree with your point though – when evil is absent, that does not mean there is good. See far below.
> I'm not convinced by the works vs. grace contradiction. God's decision must not > be arbitrary, so he must have criteria. Does belief alone allow entry to heaven?
>
> [you] imply that those outside may still be allowed to heaven? If they are not
> Christian, but you can't be sure that God will reject them, then presumably some > of those outside can get into heaven on basis of merit?
“The Lord does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance but the Lord looks at the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7. “If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.” 1 Cor 13:3. It doesn’t matter what you do; nothing you do can earn your way into heaven. God sees and knows you to the core; He does not need to see what you do to judge who you are, as we do. But at the same time, “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” Gal 5:22. If you have truly given your life to God, your life will demonstrate that change. Not right away, not completely yet…but it will. If your life does not…that’s a big debate among Christians =). It’s not as black and white as you seem to think or as I just seemed to indicate. (see next paragraph)
I believe God's understanding is really quite far beyond mine. He is not an idiot or a demanding dictator (understatement). I became Christian three years ago – He did not expect me to understand what I understand now. He did not expect me to blindly believe everything I read and heard. He welcomes questions, and an earnest desire to know the Truth. “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” Mt 7:7-8. Truth comes with understanding further who He is, and that takes time and patience and reading the Bible. If you are honestly seeking answers from God, He will answer.
To the final point, I never said people who did not believe in Jesus would be able to get to heaven. The Bible is clear, as I quoted: “No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 11:6 I, however, am not as eager as you to send them to hell. I don’t know where they are going, except they are not going to the Father. I don’t feel qualified enough to say where they are. Many other people to do, but I’ll reserve my bets on God’s decisions rather than man’s. If pressed, I think they will go to hell, if they heard the truth and chose to reject it. (I don’t know if they have not heard the Gospel. There are references, but I’m not sure I completely understand them). That’s the logical conclusion – we make a choice, and He allows us to make that choice. I’m not sure what other way would be just.
> I would rather have a world full of moral atheists than a world full of God-
> fearing witchhunters, and I hope you would too.
In my eyes, there can be no such thing as God-fearing witchhunters. There can be people who claim to be God-fearing, but that does not mean they are. If you truly feared who God was, there’d be a lot more praise of God then burning of people.
If I claim that someone is not Christian, I don’t think you can claim that they are. Mormons, no matter what they claim, are not Christians. They go to “church”, they go on missions, but their fundamental beliefs are not Christian. But many people believe they are – but this is why you cannot go by just what people claim they do. Someone is part of an organization because his beliefs are consistent with what that organization holds to be true. That’s the very definition we use to define this type of group; anything else is ridiculous. If I claim to be an atheist, you would clearly say that I am not. I do not believe what you believe.
This is why claiming witch-hunting as justified in the Bible is insufficient to blame the Bible (or the Christian faith) for the source of this trouble. That goes against the fundamental beliefs of the Bible. People are responsible for what they do and what they choose. They choose different ways to justify it, but that, as you recognize, does not give an evil action validity, no matter what justification they give. Since an evil action does not gain validity no matter what context it is justified by, why would you throw something away that asks you to uphold yourself to something Good?
If there is a recipe for something and it calls for sour cream, it calls for sour cream. You can put in something else instead, but that doesn’t change the recipe. It is your choice to put whatever you want in your life, and you make the recipe work – or not. We created metalworking to make plows. People also used metal to make swords and kill each other. Did we throw away metal? Not quite. We have never concluded that because something can result in evil that we should throw it away (i.e. nuclear power, rocket technology, etc).
The next argument is – why doesn’t God make what He wants more clear? I would have to say that you don’t know what the Bible says, thus it is unclear what He expects and wants. From what I understand of your reading of the Bible, you’ve read the Bible to find inconsistencies. You have not read the Bible to understand who God is, and what His Word says. It does not seem like you have ever read the New Testament. I don’t believe you can give an honest, informed opinion on the Bible. If you’ve only played the Zerg, you just cannot comment on race imbalance as validly as someone who has played all three races. There’s no way around that truth.
The reason I say that is: even if you did not believe in what the Bible said, you would see that it does not focus on hell. It never has, and never will. The message by far, is an exhortation to live a life in emulation of Jesus and to reflect the love that He has for us towards others. Love of God for us, above all else, is the primary message from the Bible. To understand it any other way is simply and completely, incorrect. To present it to others as something fundamentally talking about hell is reprehensible, just as falsely talking about atheism is reprehensible. I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, but you’re criticizing something you don’t even understand – and because you understand different fragments of it, you think you know enough to have the whole picture. This is not meant to say your understanding and opinions are not valuable, but it does mean your criticisms, to me, don’t hold water since you haven’t really taken the time to understand what you are criticizing.
Fundamental to understanding hell is understanding our relationship to God. If you don’t believe that we’re sinful (or that sin has anything to do with hell), then hell seems a completely ridiculous thing and completely unfair. Of course. It seems you want to hold the Bible and God accountable for what people do (i.e. He hasn’t compelled them to be good or something like that), whereas I don’t believe that God expects us to be perfect, but does desire us to be and aids us in doing so.
> I disagree with your idea of hell. I have no quotes to back me up, but my
> impression of hell - and I think most people's - is one of infinite torment. We all
If there were no Good and a complete lack of compassion, love, kindness, beauty or anything else, I think that would be hell. I am not referring to just Good vs. Evil but everything that has Goodness to it (above things). Understand that you would be in the companionship of Satan, but that would be mutual condemnation. “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels….” Mt 25:41-44
“Most people’s” definition of hell does not, as we’ve seen before, make it the correct definition. Popularity means nothing – we’re operating on truth, hopefully.
> And what about turning the other cheek? Does that rule apply to God Himself?...but you've said hell is not a punishment...
God is turning His cheek right now, otherwise, we’d both be toast. Like I said, Jesus came and died for our sins. I know you don’t accept that this is true, but just assume it’s true for a moment. Let’s think internal consistency. There would be no reason for Christ if God did not want to forgive us our sins. So God wants to forgive our sins. God is not an idiot. Why send your Son to certain death if you have no reason? So God had a reason. Or why send your Son to be killed unless it is absolutely the only way? So Jesus is the only way to God (Jn 11:6 again). God is in fact turning the other cheek because His intention is for our forgiveness. Even after we killed His Son, He wants to reconcile us to Him. This was His infinite, loving aspect. If this were not true, we would all be in hell.
But God also hears the cries of those who died for His sake (Rev 6:9). So I think my philosophical point of hell being the absence of God is in fact a punishment. God does hear the cry for justice, and does mete out punishment. I was wrong and I do apologize for that error. But I think the reason I said so is that there are two reasons that hell exists (and I was thinking of the latter): punishment and logic. Punishment as in the above Matthew passage, where the cursed are sent to hell (they did not follow the cross). Logic as in if a person makes a choice to not be with God, he has the right to do so. If he hasn’t chosen to reflect on the consequences of that, that does not absolve him from that decision. (i.e. manslaughter is killing someone without premeditation – it is still wrong).
I think the preoccupation with hell is…unnecessary. We discussed before whether the Bible refers to life or death. I think you agreed that it was primarily about life; but I don’t just mean day-to-day life. The entire point of the Gospel is freedom from sin and real Life, not a preoccupation whether you’ve done something wrong and are going to hell. I had hoped with the illustration with works vs. grace that it would be clear that you cannot work your way into heaven – no one can. So God does not ever place a threshold that you must meet. He did not because whatever threshold He set, there would be someone who could not meet it (somewhere). Instead, He choose to set the threshold infinitely high, and have it met by His own Son so *everyone* is in the fold who wants to be. This is not a fine point of Christianity – this is the centerpiece of Christianity. You do not have to meet some standard of living to find God. But you must be willing to fully and wholly seek after Him – the fruits of this will manifest themselves in your life naturally. Hell is really the last thing on your mind, unless you just don’t want to believe in God.
I think many of your questions refer to the internal consistency of the Bible, which is evident if you reflect on it some more. Understanding the internal consistency of the Bible and its logical consequences are really where this debate needs to go (whoever is left reading). Everything else is really quite secondary to this. If you have questions about how to determine whether you believe this or not, I’d love to help answer them. But ultimately…as always, I cannot convince you to believe. God does not operate that way either. He wants you to come to Him by your own desire.
For if God were to make Himself known so very clearly, what option would that leave you? Would you not call that unjust, as you were left no choice (i.e. divine terrorism)? Right now, you think that’s unfair because you were left a choice. Are choices not the most loving thing to do? And even if Christians were perfect, would that leave any doubt in your mind? Even people who saw God before their eyes refused to believe (Pharisees). Even when miracles were performed in the midst, the Jewish people turned away (Red Sea parting, flaming pillar at night, cloud by day, etc). “Proof” is proof to those who believe it.
More directly, I’ve insisted that the Bible speaks to life, and God’s love for us; I have yet to see any acknowledgement (or not) of that in your arguments. Hell is moot if you consider that God is right there, wanting you to be with Him. Just follow. The act is to follow, not because of a negative reason (hell) but a positive one (He’s right there). I think I’ve shown that God is concerned with love – my primary arguments have always demonstrated this. In your eyes, hell is still a major reason not to believe. I’ve given all sorts of Biblical evidence that this is not the reason that God sent Jesus, and I’ve tried to demonstrate that your concept of heaven and hell are too fragmented and oppositionary. (i.e. the choice is not heaven or hell, the choice is God or not – both heaven and hell are irrelevant).
But, really, I don’t see why you are arguing both hell and that you have a choice. If you are angry that God is compelling you to believe in Him, that’s one thing (by divine terrorism). If you are angry that God has given you a choice, that’s the completely opposite thing. You can’t be angry with both, if you want to be consistent. The situation is not that you were angry at some internal inconsistency in God's plan. You generated this inconsistency in your argumentation; it was not a fundamental part of your original argument. You are certainly "allowed" to be distraught by God’s apparent inconsistency, but I think you need to answer to your own inconsistency first.
Christianity does not claim perfection to man’s eyes; Christianity claims that freedom and love have been found through Jesus for men. It claims perfection through Him, and perfection before God, not before man. God is merciful and loving and will accept imperfect people as His own children. Not because He is imperfect, but because Jesus made us perfect in His eyes. People demand perfection from each other, God did not. We should encourage one another towards that, not condemn those who do not succeed but try.
Prayer is effective. But again, I cannot convince you of that. I can say that I know people who have been saved from dying, starvation, war etc. by prayer. But you would say it is coincidence. There is no real point arguing over that – if you decide there is no God, then you will not see any effect of prayer. You can explain it with something else. (this is where, ultimately, you believe or not…)
> “For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of > self-discipline.”
> I would estimate the majority of humans would be better called timid than
> loving, powerful and self-disciplined. I also think fear of the unknown and of
> things except God is justified. Death, pain and loss for example.
I would say that the majority of people are not Christian, so that would be appropriate description of people (fearful etc). There are many Christians who do not fit this description either…I would have to reiterate my prior statement that you are asking people to be perfect. Personally, I would rather have to answer to you then to God. Just like you would rather probably have to answer to a court than to your mom if you killed your sister. “How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that has sanctified him [that person], and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Hebrews 10:29, 31. Thomas Aquinas may have been thinking of this when he wrote what you quoted.
Fear of death, etc. is certainly justified if you have nothing except yourself for comfort. The hope that Christianity offers > anything. The spirit that is spoken of here is the Holy Spirit, with which we are all given when we believe, which is God’s presence in us. We are to exercise this spirit as described, and like exercise, you have build up slowly. It doesn't come right away.
> What should be done with the double-edged sword that is the Bible, applicable to > good and evil? I say chuck it out. Start over again….
> No more misinterpretations, no more contradictions or seeming contradictions,
> no more feelings of guilt about lust, no more homosexual-bashing, allowed
> divorce (divorce is of course not a good thing in general, but is intended to be the > lesser of two evils).
I think you’re mistaken. We are living under the Constitution and homosexual bashing is not the sole providence of Christians. I don’t remember the last time someone homosexual was killed in the name of God. If it were to happen, the general Christian populace would not support that – that is, you cannot blame Christians just because someone claims he is Christian and does something evil (as above ad nauseum). Divorce is rampant already. You are assuming that things are the way they are despite the Bible. How do you know they aren’t worse, thanks to the Bible? You don't, (I don't know the other way either) so these claims can't be made.
“Let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience…” Hebrews 10:22. Guilt is not the intent of God. Anyway, guilt probably indicates that you’ve done something you wish you had not done…right? If you were a true “self-morality” person, you would not be affected by the beliefs of others, as you would only need your own to justify whatever you wanted and guilt is something you wouldn’t be feeling. That’s the danger. There is no central belief that all people are drawn to and agree with and there is no basis for one. It also points to a possibility that we were not ever meant to “self-determine” what morality is?
We learn from whoever/whatever teaches us. We are products of what we have been taught, not necessarily entirely, but in part at the very least. To deny that is to deny that you learned to speak by listening, to swear by going to school, to dress because you watch TV, that targeting teenagers with smoking campaigns is completely useless (and thus not harmful), that companies spend billions of dollars on commercials for no reason, etc. These are just obviously true. I would argue that Thomas Jefferson was taught something in church, at home about God, etc. I don’t think he could have escaped it. The nation was originally colonized by Puritans (who were *Christians* fleeing persecution from the Anglican Church, right?)? And a quote is pretty but not ultimately proof of anything. “I pledge allegiance, to the flag…one nation, under God…”? etc.
Our generation is a product of an education system that says there is no basic truth, we cannot teach morality. We can just observe and state that one is equivalent as another, or that mine is just as valid as yours. What do you expect from such a philosophy? Divorce, killing, etc (Christianity < any other belief/philosophy in this system too). It is foolish to blame Christianity for these woes. If I understand your argument correctly, everything going wrong right now is occurring under a non-Christian based government anyway (“since America is not a religion-based government”). It would therefore seem that, at minimum, an atheistic society (based on ability to do good) offers nothing better than a religious one (based on love), for we have yet to truly see a God-driven government in place.
Is a person’s **fear** of homosexuality wrong? Fear is not something you can legislate against. You cannot outlaw fear, anger, hatred, or any of these things, the seeds of action – evil action at that. Christianity does speak to that. You, as an atheist, can only hope that these emotions do not take over, and that the “goodness of men” will be sufficient. It is not. In other words, I don’t see why it is an “of course” to you why divorce is evil. I say “of course” because it is consistent to say so with God’s intention for us, and His word. God is the source of Good. Without God, there would be no morality, and I would “do as I saw fit” (Judges 21:25).
> It seems that God changed His mind on morality between the Old and New Testament…it still shows he is imperfect.
I am absolutely against homosexuality. The Bible *IS* my reference frame for morality. The Old Testament is not invalid, has not been replaced, as it still informs my morality. “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” Mt 5:18 I don’t believe that homosexuality is moral but that doesn’t mean I just leave homosexuals behind. If I truly believe that it is wrong, I need to get my hands in there and offer them the help that I can. (Haven’t I said this many many times???) The model Jesus sets is that if someone does something wrong, help them find their way. That's what He did, that's what we are supposed to do. Internal consistency (IC) stands.
Your argument is extremely interesting as you claim that if I were Christian, I should condemn them and leave them behind. I’ll have to be honest – I find that you are shaping your understanding of what a Christian should do based on what you understand Christianity to be, rather than understanding what God has intended, and judging the actions of Christians through that lens. That’s where the loophole of even a person’s own morality is found. You invariably favor yourself and your own ends. (I’m not sure how you drew the conclusion that the only loophole-less morality is one’s own). Everything may be internally consistent (non-conflicting within the framework), but external consistency (general applicability to many people) is the thing you will inevitably lack with an atheistic society.
Who are the people who argue for euthanasia? The young. Who are the people who argue for abortion? The well. I have not met a person who was handicapped support abortion, because they know that they probably would have been killed. There are probably very few, if any. And so forth. You are arguing for something that seems so clearly right – from your perspective. Your perspective is skewed, invariably and inevitably. Therefore, the perspective you provide is equally skewed, therefore the conclusions you will draw will also be skewed. Perhaps not every conclusion, but only perhaps only one. Perhaps that one is the law that writes in slavery as just? Abortion as just? Something else as just? And what if the person in power is not quite as “just” as you are…?
> I have nothing to declare except that humans are not necessarily not selfish, and I am very shocked to see that questioned…a fundamental difference between an atheist and a Christian: innate morality. "Not one man in a thousand has either strength of mind of goodness of heart to be an Atheist. “
> I still protest that the comparatively little evil I've done does not deserve eternal torment...
Yes. That is the difference between an atheist and Christian – I completely accept that nothing I could do, without God, would have ultimately been good. You are believe that person are good and have a good measure of decency. But “very few people have this sort of moral capacity” (your Samuel Taylor). Unlikely that you all have this capacity. Inconsistency…I await your reply. What about those people who do not meet your standard? You only appeal to people who believe the same thing you do – that people (including themselves) have some normal decency. The problem comes with people who do not follow your philosophy, who do not choose to act in a “good” manner – you offer nothing for them. (same as before – abortion is supported by those who are not “defective”)
I absolutely promise you that such a society will not work because your decisions about what are right or not are relative (decided personally, as you said). The Inuit are a famous example. They leave their elderly and their children behind when times are difficult. They leave them to die, for the sake of the survival of their tribe. There goes your universal understanding of what is right and wrong. I only need one example to prove that thesis and your internal consistency wrong.
Certain societies decide that a child should not receive medical treatment. Why? Because that child is a girl, it is "too difficult a life". 100% guaranteed they would have gotten treatment if the child were a boy. (reference: medical missions doctor, John Patrick)
I find pornography is something that is detestable. If I had a sister or daughter, that is the last thing I would want her to be doing…but someone else’s sister/daughter is doing it (this isn’t my major point, just a soap box statement). Pornography has probably been around for some time (like every other sin) but only recently has it been more generally acceptable. Abortion the same. People now fight over these issues; before these were non-issues because people believed they were wrong. What people believe to be wrong or not changes. While you may think it is just a “new level of human understanding” and perfectly acceptable, I do not. I doubt my future daughters and wife would either. Where will our next “understanding” take us?
And the only reason I can claim Christianity as superior to that is because I truly believe that my God exists. Christianity without Him as the foundation of faith is no better than what you offer.
> if God never forbade it, it's OK.
I don’t know if your friend actually stated that or not. If he did, I would have to disagree with that completely. God never says anything specifically about eating the left kidney from people that are still alive, equipped only with a fork, but that’s obviously something wrong, consistent with everything we know about God and the Bible. That’s just a stupid thing for your friend to have said.
>I have another problem: Jesus died in order that all our sins may be forgiven. This makes a poetic, satisfying ideal, but it doesn't really make sense. The American legal system will not deal out punishment to one for another's crime. There is no rational reason for God to forgive any Christian today for the actions of Jesus two thousand years ago. And if forgiving us was God's intention, why couldn't He just do it, without the death of Jesus? He's God - He makes the rules. Is he acting under a higher power? There's no good reason for Jesus to have to die - except that amongst the pressures compelling a person to Christianity is added a debt of gratitude.
The American justice system is perfectly willing to deal out punishment to someone for another’s crime (i.e. innocent men have been convicted; me, if I sacrifice myself for my kid without them knowing). Ultimately, law only demands that someone pay for the crime. It does try to catch the right person though.
You say that there is no reason for God to pay for the crime. If I chose to go to jail for one of my children, that’s sacrifice…. Right? I love my kid, and I would go to jail for them – reason = love. And He is a living sacrifice, Jesus, thus it remains valid today (internal consistency). And yes, God, if He were only just, would demand that each of us pay the price for the sins we have committed. But His justice is tempered by His mercy and love – Jesus dies for our sins so that we do not have to. (I think this is what I said last time)
“You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Ro 5:6-8. The internal consistency of God’s plan is perfect and I don’t see your difficulty with it. I think I’ve provided a reason for it…if you don’t agree with it, or if it seems unlikely, that’s one thing. But the reason is there, and it is an obvious one. Nothing’s changed in my argument; the Son has still died for both of us.
My biggest criticism of what your system is that there is some level of expectation that not everyone will be able to meet. If Jesus dies for everyone, there is no level of expectation that people have to meet - you believe, have faith, accept God's hand in your life, and you Live.
If you read the book of Hebrews, it essentially explains why God uses Jesus as the means. But there are two points in addition to that one:
1. God is just. He demands justice. Jesus, only Jesus, satisfied this justice. IC stands.
2. God would be extremely capricious if He randomly broke whatever rules suited His will. I doubt that would make His will very clear or discernable to us if He did. IC stands.
> the quote below makes him a poor standard for an example of an upstanding Christian.
"If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy." - Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas was a brilliant theologian in the Middle Ages. I cannot really explain the quote, since I don’t know where you got it from (and I don’t understand why you are even bringing it up), but you may want to consider that people were put to death for all sorts of reasons. I think his point is that if you are going to kill people for these crimes against people, you should really be putting people to death who malign God. It says absolutely nothing about whether he actually believed that this should be instituted as law. (i.e. I agree with the statement as it is stated exactly above. It doesn’t mean that I believe it should actually be instituted. I believe abortion is murdering kids, and I am inclined to hurt the people who are performing them. That does ***not*** mean I actually think they should be.) An alternative understanding is that this could be a comment about the motivations about those who are killing people for rather stupid reasons, rather than a call to kill those who malign God. I don’t know the source, so, I can’t be sure of its meaning. He is, also, just a man.
I think I’ve answered all of you doubts about IC. I don’t think you’re going to find loopholes in God’s plan. External consistency is something that we could debate for a while, but I think I’ve also shown that what you offer as a “solution” to Biblical living is where we are right now anyway. I await your reply....
| | #126 Zumbooruk a.k.a. Zephyr[42074] | | 203.96.111.204 | | Hi Paradigm. I'm working on my reply, but I have so many other things to do (including my first Battle Report, which I'll post as Zumbooruk), so it'll be about another three days. | | #127 Paradigm[42078] | | 1Cust170.tnt2.det3.da.uu.net | | cool beans =)...i'll look for your BR =D! | | #128 Zumbooruk[43814] | | 203.96.111.202 | | Sorry again. I know it's been a week rather than three days, and neither the battle report nor the reply are finished. I am a 16 year old high school student with major musical commitments to the piano and cello, and work is suddenly piling up. I might try again tonight, but it looks doubtful. | | #129 Zumbooruk[43847] | | 203.96.111.202 | Hi Paradigm
Again, I apologize for the delay. Though it will take me ages, I can finally reply. No offence taken, but your pointed argument gives me leave to answer in kind. I will begin, however, by conceding a few points. I have been unfair. Possibly arrogant. Maybe even a little irrational.
This post will refer to your last post, and then attempt to utterly discredit the Bible as a moral code. I don’t see how anyone can read all I have read in the Bible and still hold everything in it as sacred, whether or not they claim all their morality comes from the Bible. I think, that unless you can say I’ve misquoted, mistranslated or misinterpreted, the teachings of parts of the Bible are morally repugnant, and quite frankly, evil. More on that later. First, I must clear up some misunderstandings.
I thought it was uncertain whether unbelievers go to hell by your comment:
“…those who are not followers of Jesus (atheists, Muslims, etc)…I don’t know that it is within our realm to claim that they go to hell.”
I see now I was wrong.
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” Mt 7:7-8. Truth comes with understanding further who He is, and that takes time and patience and reading the Bible. If you are honestly seeking answers from God, He will answer.
I deny the truth of that quote. I want to know the truth about God, and I think you’ll agree that I’ve gone to great lengths to examine the Christian religion. I used to be Christian because of my education at my Anglican primary school, where Religious Education was taught once a week, and the parables of Jesus were used as English exercises. I wasn’t a vehement believer because my family aren’t, but I assumed what they were telling me was true. When I was about eight (I was an early reader) I began reading bits of the Bible. I started with Revelations. Perhaps already biased by my elder brothers view on the involvement of hardcore drugs in that section’s inspiration, I was sceptical. I read more. I already knew most of the Jesus stuff, and it was quite boring (I was eight and I wanted to read about wars, plagues and genocide), so I read about Sodom and Lot’s wife being turned to salt, of Moses’ exploits, of Israel’s repetitive disobedience to God and God’s punishments.
“I would have to say that you don’t know what the Bible says, thus it is unclear what He expects and wants.”
I have read large parts of the Bible, mostly the negative things, but I have a solid grounding in the teachings of Jesus too (that is, the teachings of Jesus as they were presented, which did not mention execution, false prophecies and Christian magic). I know of Zechariah the tax-collector, of the loaves and fishes, the wine to water and walking on water miracles, of how Jesus first met the apostles when they were fishing, the Samaritans, Judas, the Last Supper, Pontius Pilate – basically, all the exciting but non-controversial aspects of Jesus’ life. You note (somewhat aggrievedly) that as yet, I have not mentioned the New Testament in any post (simply because I agree with almost all of it’s morality, so there’s nothing to say; in other words, I concede almost all of the morality of the New Testament). Some things I don’t agree with will be addressed in this post. I was, however, unfair of me to talk so exclusively of what is wrong with the Bible and its notions of hell without emphasizing the good parts enough. I’ll say it now: I agree with almost all of the moral teachings in the New Testament; that is, it is a very good moral guide (with some exceptions). However, understand that I’ll probably not refer to the good in the Bible again this post, and instead expose the blatant cruelty and evil that is contained within its pages.
I’m sorry – that paragraph was long, repetitive and possibly hard to follow. It’s very late.
“In my eyes, there can be no such thing as God-fearing witchhunters.”
If I may say so bluntly, this, to me, seems naïve. I may be wrong. But God-fearing peasants over-run by a plague or some other unexplainable phenomenon, incited by a demagogic priest into executing weird old women who they never trusted anyway in the name of God as witches seems perfectly plausible to me. In the Salem witch trials, a couple was first suspected for saying they did not believe in witches – this contradicted the Bible and was of course a huge offence to the Protestants. They were both later executed as witches. The point is that merely not believing in witches contradicts the Bible. Barely literate, scared peasants have no reason to doubt the Bible or its representative, the Church. And when the Church points out a witch, there is no reason to doubt the decision. Surely God would ensure the right decision is made.
“It seems you want to hold the Bible and God accountable for what people do.”
No more than I hold the guns used in last year’s Colorado massacre accountable for the actions of the students who opened fire. But if I could have prevented the students from having access to guns, I would. Similarly, if I could have prevented anyone who has persecuted homosexuals, or executed witches, supported slavery, or raped a captive or slave, from seeing the relevant quotes in the Bible, I would have.
“Jesus came and died for our sins.”
This makes sense, from a certain point of view – but it contradicts part of the Bible:
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.”
The quote is concerned with the idea that only the sinner can be punished for the sin; the descendants are not responsible; that ‘wickedness of the wicked’ is only punishable to the wicked. So Jesus must not be punished on behalf of mankind. I will cover this again later, but my biggest problem here is: “Why send your Son to be killed unless it is absolutely the only way?”
It can only be the only way if some higher power has determined that it is the only way. Is God acting under a higher power? Let’s assume, however, that God is acting under some laws of nature: 2+2=4, Pi = 3.141… that He can’t change, including that He can’t accept humanity into Heaven only because He wants to, and the sins must be paid for (to whom?) somehow – with the death of His Son. Surely Jesus should go to hell/be separated from God forever, though, like would have happened to humanity if He had not died? The punishment that Jesus accepts for humanity’s sake should surely be the one humanity escaped by His goodwill? And why God’s Son? There are examples in the Bible of people transferring their sins to animals, usually goats, and killing them to absolve the guilt (hence the word scapegoat). This is despite that fact that the Bible says animals do not have souls, which I’ve heard is the repository of sin. Why didn’t God use a goat? Or a lot of goats? Or just create a new animal solely for the purpose of bearing sins (the Zerg Overlord comes to mind). But that wouldn’t make a good story to stir the masses, would it?
I know I said I’d cover everything, but it is, in fact, very late. Absurdly late. Night-before-the-assignment-is-due late. I’m so tired I can barely see anymore. So, though I have all the material and some initial ideas drafted for the exposure of the Bible, including some of the New Testament, as a perverse and disgusting moral code, they, and the reply to the rest of your post, will have to wait a few days, maybe the weekend.
Don’t fully reply yet; you must be busy too. This is incomplete, and I want to have it all down in its entirety before you tackle it.
Zumbooruk
P.S. The battle report is on indefinite hold. It is at a semi-finished stage that would receive at least a 7 average, and thus qualify as a Gold Report, but I am not happy with it. So don’t expect it any time soon.
| | #130 Paradigm[44203] | | 1Cust225.tnt1.det3.da.uu.net | I'll wait for your full reply =)....
I'm sorry. I looked over my last reply and it didn't say the things I wanted to say. I think I was quite a bit grouchy when I wrote that reply (4am?) and kind of...unhappy that I wasn't making sense to you. I hope you accept my apology. This has really been good for me to talk to you about these questions that you have - believe it or not, it has helped me with my faith =). I hope we can keep talking - I really have enjoyed this very much. =)
Take care, and get some rest.
Paradigm | | #131 Sp|nE[44820] | | dialup0155-pri.voicenet.com | | some of those posts were utterly mindbogglingly long | | #132 Zumbooruk[46005] | | 203.96.111.202 | Hi Paradigm
I know it’s been two weeks, but I suppose we have eternity to sort this out – or at least a lifetime. Since my last post, I’ve thought a lot about what I was going to write (what I emotively called ‘the exposure of the Bible…as a perverse and disgusting moral code’), and tested it against my friends, all of whom have recently turned theoretical Christians, primarily to aggravate me. I’ll include most of it for the sake of completeness (it deals with the support of slavery and rape) at the end, but what they said was perfectly true and accurate – the Bible is not the sacrosanct Word of God, but merely the ideas and fallibilities of mortals written down. A lot of the writers of the Bible were exploiting religion to further their own ends, but that on its own is not any disproof of God. I could argue that it is highly suggestive that God does not exist, but….I don’t really believe that. It doesn’t compare with the greater picture…it hardly matters. I’m not arguing for the sake of arguing, or for the sake of winning. I only want the truth. Here’s the highlights of what I had prepared two weeks ago (some things I’m not so enthusiastic about now):
____________________________________________________________
Mark: 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark: 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mark: 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
True Christians can:
1) cast out devils,
2) speak in tongues,
3) take up serpents,
4) drink poisons without harm, and
5) cure the sick by touching them.
You, Paradigm, are a Christian. How many cancer victims have you healed today?
(New Testament)
Mark: 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Who so curseth father or mother, let him die the death
Jesus, in fact, did embrace punishment by death, as Mark shows here when Jesus quotes Moses. The circumstances (though I don’t fully understand them) are the Jesus was criticizing the Jews for following their own traditions, at the cost of commandments of God.
Evil:
“In my eyes, there can be no such thing as God-fearing witchhunters.”
You say the Bible does not justify evil actions, and that those who do evil actions in the name of God are not Christian, though they say they are. The Sixth Commandment condemns killing/murder (having thought about it, I disagree with your assertion that it meant murder simply because of the 47 times in the Bible it was used, 41 meant murder. What about the other 6 times? In a book like the Bible, which deals largely – I’m certainly not saying exclusively or even mostly – with morality and anecdotes of war and death, the majority of killings mentioned would be murder anyway). God, however, has told people to kill others (including children and animals) directly, and they have done so as is reported in the Bible. Of course, we must define murder. My quick definition says defense, execution are okay (okay in the Bible; I’m not saying I support the death penalty. Also note that war is a combination of the two – execution and defense, but that does not extend to the massacre of non-participating captives). Does that cover everything?
Samuel 1:15:3: Now go and smite Amelek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
God’s problem with Amelek (a city, not a person) was that hundreds of years ago, Amalek had waged war on Israel. So God orders Saul to massacre a city’s population including the infants. Assuming that God was not ordering his people to commit murder, the children must have committed a crime. The crime must have been being born of a citizen of a city who once waged war on Israel (hundreds of years ago). Thus, you are responsible for the crimes of your parents, and all your ancestors (a simpler example would have been Eve and original sin).
Do you agree, Paradigm, that everyone is responsible for the sins of their ancestors and should pay the penalty of death for their crimes?
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.
All I can say is that here is a glaring contradiction that I can’t even begin to see a way out of. Either God was an accomplice to murder, or Ezekiel contradicts Him. Paradigm, I want you to address this specifically in your next post. Which is it – a criminally murderous God or this false prophet? If you claim possible misinterpretation, please state which words could possible be mistranslated so as to eliminate the contradiction.
If God wants to have someone killed (it happens; if you disagree, say so directly and I will provide many more examples of him ordering people to kill others) are we to understand that He will say so directly, and that we can’t rely on the examples of the Bible and take the initiative ourselves? Note that Samuel reports God’s reason – the war of the Amelekites upon Israel. Here is a simple logic sequence:
Amelek wages war against Israel
God says Amelek must be massacred for waging war on Israel.
Waging war on Israel is punished by massacre.
In 1948, for example, Arabs waged war upon Jews in and near Jerusalem.
Those Arabs must be massacred.
Paradigm, in your next post, I want you to show the flaw in the logic. Note that it doesn’t matter that the Jews of 1948 weren’t Christian – they are still Israelites, and though they don’t get to heaven because they were out when Jesus called, obeying God’s word should still be a good idea.
And, of course, love thine enemies.
The Biblical Guide to Rape:
Numbers: 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
Numbers: 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Having taken the city, kill the men and the unchaste women, and the virgins are yours for the raping. Need more detail? Refer to Deuteronomy:
Deuteronomy: 21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
Deuteronomy: 21:12: Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
Deuternomy: 21:13:And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Amongst prisoners of war, you can choose any woman you desire, clean her up, marry her after a month and rape her. This is okay, though, because you’re married.
So you can rape captives and slaves, but not engaged women:
Deuteronomy: 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Deuteronomy: 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deuteronomy later says that, if the engaged woman is raped in a field where no-one can hear her cries for help, only the man gets stoned (the implication being that in a city there’s always someone around to hear her screams, so the rape would have been voluntary).
What about a virgin who isn’t engaged, but is a citizen? Sure, you can rape her, but if found out you’ll have to pay her father (the pimp), and marry her forever:
Deuteronomy: 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Deuteronomy: 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Your views on pornography pale in comparison to rape.
____________________________________________________________
If, of course, you do believe the Bible is the sancrosanct Word of God, I’ll launch into that argument with all my former energy. I said I wouldn’t argue the fact God’s book and representation of his command on Earth, the Bible, does not seem to have had any direct input by Him and that this is not very suggestive that He does not exist…but the more I think about it, it is. Why would omnipotent God not edit the Bible Himself, and have its message exactly as He wants it? As it is, readers must choose what to believe, not based on divine command, but on their own, flawed (in comparison to divine) morality, and get some things wrong. In fact, it is by God’s ‘silent assent’ that the injustices committed in the name of the Bible occurred, when people were too afraid not to follow every command of the Bible.
I’m returning now to direct comment on your post…and seen:
“Understanding the internal consistency of the Bible and its logical consequences are really where this debate needs to go…Everything else is really quite secondary to this.”
I think I’ve misinterpreted your beliefs. Do you still believe the Bible, the whole Bible, can be internally consistent? I don’t mean the machinations of Christianity – exactly why Christ must die, or what hell is and whether it is a punishment – but every individual tiny little mistake from the different Gospels reporting different speeches at Jesus’ trial to Genesis telling us that we were given all the animals for their flesh to eat contradicting Deuteronomy’s insistence that we can’t eat animals that chew cud or divideth the hoof (like pigs).
“For if God were to make Himself known so very clearly, what option would that leave you? Would you not call that unjust, as you were left no choice (i.e. divine terrorism)?”
I don’t see the danger in knowing the truth. If I knew God exists and I knew I would go to hell for rejecting him, I would probably become a Christian (though if He confirmed He was all for the rape thing I might make a martyr-like, heroic and uselessly symbolic last stand of defiance). My understanding of Satanists is that they utterly believe in the Jewish God and usually Jesus too, but either embrace ‘the Dark Side’ in the hope that Satan will win Armageddon (Satanists probably have their own prophets predicting a win for evil to counter Revelations), or believe that Satan was basically slandered and it was all a misunderstanding. I’d support the second theory, if I believed in God. Here’s a quote from an atheist site I’ve seen recently:
“What did Satan do? Nothing. I haven't read a story yet where Satan kills hundreds of thousands of men in a jealous rage, causes world wide floods, causes plagues, famine, disease, killed the first born of every Egyptian family, pitted brother against brother, commands that you must love him more than your family, nor did he sacrifice his only begotten son (whatever that means) for a ridiculous cause that obviously didn't do any real good. Satan appears to be the "good" guy. Kicked out of Heaven because he asked a few questions. Satan seems more moral than God.
Let's think about this, surely one would suspect that after a few thousand
years that Satan would have asked God repeatedly to get back into Heaven by now. But the all-merciful, loving God decided to keep Satan down and make him as miserable as possible. If I met Satan, I would give him a great big hug. Poor guy. The loving God was nothing of the sort when it pertained to Satan.”
All I can say is: “Yeah.”
But I’m sidetracked. How can you justify the damning of those who were simply unsure of God’s existence? If they knew God existed, and still rejected him or his principles, I could understand – and there would still be options. What I’m saying is that the choice should not be between faith or not, but between morality or not – like the legal system of every civilized country. Of course, only the insatiably evil, the foolish or the defiant would reject God if He were known to exist, but that is the same for society’s criminals too.
“More directly, I’ve insisted that the Bible speaks to life, and God’s love for us; I have yet to see any acknowledgement (or not) of that in your arguments.”
I did, 15 posts ago in #125: “I'll concede that the Bible is more about life than death.”
I’ll apologize now, however, because that acknowledgement was unfairly short and unqualified, although I can’t actually remember anything comforting whatsoever in the Old Testament except the Ten Commandments, but I would be the first to admit that I’ve read only the worst parts. The rest is a change of strategy chillingly reminiscent of a wartime interrogator – from threatening to sympathizing and sometimes pleading. The New Testament is certainly a heart-warming piece of writing – Jesus loves me. That’s certainly something that would comfort any peasant whose village has just been burned down, or who has just been (so ironically) raped, or who felt abandoned by the more judgmental Roman gods. No doubt it is very comforting to grasp that piece of information in moments of pain and terror. In fact, it sounds <i>almost too good to be true.</i>
Propaganda accusations aside, I’ll agree with what you’re saying about God’s love – that the idea of Christianity is (currently) concerned with God’s love and his desire for us all to be with Him.
“I can say that I know people who have been saved from dying, starvation, war etc. by prayer. But you would say it is coincidence.”
I enter this particular point timidly: we can check statistically whether this is true. We can choose 1000 cancer victims randomly whose death is not yet certain, and find the percentage that are Christians (I’m assuming Christians are more likely to be saved by God). Five years later we check to see what percentage of non-Christians died, then what percentage of Christians died. If the Christians have a significantly lower death rate, we can conclude that there is a correlation between being Christian and surviving cancer. Should we find that, though, I would require further investigation to check whether Christians are less likely to smoke, etc. Or, we might find that non-Christians have a lower death rate, which might indicate that God doesn’t mind the Christians dying because they will go to heaven, but the non-Christians must be given every opportunity to switch faiths. It makes sense, except God didn’t make the same effort for the six million Jews who died in the Holocaust.
“I would estimate the majority of humans would be better called timid than loving, powerful and self-disciplined.”
“I would have to reiterate my prior statement that you are asking people to be perfect.”
When I said people in general were timid rather than loving, powerful and self-disciplined, I didn’t say I abhorred it. I’m not asking them to be perfect; I don’t expect them to be perfect. I only stated the truth.
“I don’t remember the last time someone homosexual was killed in the name of God.”
Actually, it is frequent enough for me to have coincidentally run across a fairly recent example in Bill Bryson’s book, a Walk in the Woods. Published around five years ago, it mentioned a shooting of two lesbians somewhere on the Appalachian Trail in 1988. The killer was swiftly brought to justice – executed, in fact – but it is an example of the trouble still being caused by the Bible’s words. I agree:
“…you cannot blame Christians just because someone claims he is Christian and does something evil…”
But I protest I never accused Christians; I accused the Bible. Let Christianity be tarred with the same brush only by association.
“How do you know they aren’t worse, thanks to the Bible? You don't, (I don't know the other way either) so these claims can't be made.”
I concede.
“If you were a true “self-morality” person, you would not be affected by the beliefs of others”
Speaking as a true “self-morality” person, I am extremely careful to examine all my beliefs (no need to defend that 8)), especially comparing them to the beliefs of others, and I am prepared to change and concede areas I perceive to be wrong. Basing morality on a book, however, is a rigid code that must assume perfection, not only because it came from God (or mortals, etc.) but because it can’t be changed. Once you start discounting items (like rape) you must be relying on “self-morality”, at least in part, and you’re as bad as I am.
“…you would only need your own [moral code] to justify whatever you wanted and guilt is something you wouldn’t be feeling. That’s the danger. There is no central belief that all people are drawn to and agree with and there is no basis for one.”
Well, yes. But if you assume atheism rather than religion – I don’t make the rules. No-one made the rules. Self-determined morality does not work perfectly. Nor does Christian morality, though for different reasons – misinterpretation or literal interpretation (that actually covers all translation).
“It also points to a possibility that we were not ever meant to “self-determine” what morality is?”
Only if you assume God exists – once you do, this furthers your case; if you assume atheism, this is just another aspect of humanity that doesn’t work perfectly, and doesn’t show anything by itself. In fact, if I assume atheism, this can further my case against Christianity, because unless you want to rape your captives, Christians must rely on self-morality, which you’ve said is flawed.
“I would argue that Thomas Jefferson was taught something in church, at home about God, etc.”
Agreed, but it doesn’t show that morality comes only from God. In New Zealand, there were Maoris (native New Zealanders) here in the 17th century before the European settlers came, and they had a moral code not to commit murder, etc. before missionaries ever came and told them how wrong they’d been for several thousand years and that every Maori that had lived for the last 1700 years had gone to hell. Thomas Jefferson’s morality was no doubt largely based on Christianity (but assuming atheism, Christianity’s morality was based on the universal morality that emerges in successful societies anyway; I’ve covered that before)
“Is a person’s **fear** of homosexuality wrong?”
Zumbooruk 1:1 It depends on your definition of wrong. Fear of homosexuality is irrational, counterproductive and dangerous, but the fear itself is not wrong if it is not acted upon. I don’t fear it, but I would rather not see two guys have sex.
<i>Hear the gospel of Zumbooruk.
(Thanks be to random particles of space/time continuum)</i>
“You, as an atheist, can only hope that these emotions do not take over, and that the “goodness of men” will be sufficient.”
Objection! I protest it is at least as likely that a Christian’s emotion overrides his Bible that it is likely that an atheist’s emotion overrides his moral code.
“I don’t see why it is an “of course” to you why divorce is evil.”
‘Lesser of two evils’ was an inaccurate phrase to choose. I didn’t really mean evil; I meant that it’s usually an unpleasant experience for all involved, but better (or less bad, or less evil) than continuing a failed marriage.
“I am absolutely against homosexuality. The Bible *IS* my reference frame for morality. The Old Testament is not invalid, has not been replaced, as it still informs my morality.”
This will be my last point – it’s 4:16am. I’m very sorry; I had definitely lost sight of this since my last post. I’m not going to rewrite this post to cope (it’s late; later than last time), though I know a lot of it assumes you will abandon the parts of the Bible that support rape etc., and so you might as well abandon the evil of homosexuals. I see now this is not the case, and now I fully expect you to dodge the rape thing with one of Christianity’s Three Universal Escape Clauses:
1) Mistranslation
2) Misinterpretation
3) All part of God’s Great Plan
Surprise me.
Zumbooruk
P.S. I need one more week to finish replying to the rest of your post.
P.P.S. I’m very sorry if some of this post seems obnoxious. It’s very late and I might not be as tactful as I would otherwise be.
| | #133 Paradigm[46302] | | 1Cust108.tnt3.det3.da.uu.net | Hey dude,
Don’t worry about delay =). I know that I need that grace of not being able to do everything at the same time (i.e. extensions). I’m just glad you’re able to reply when you can =).
“I don’t see how anyone can read all I have read in the Bible and still hold everything in it as sacred, whether or not they claim all their morality comes from the Bible. I think, that unless you can say I’ve misquoted, mistranslated or misinterpreted, the teachings of parts of the Bible are morally repugnant, and quite frankly, evil.
I’ll have to say that there is yet something you’ve brought up from the Bible that I have had trouble dealing with – I’m not sure if you are referring to things that you have not yet brought up with, or something that I haven’t sufficiently dealt with that satisfies you?
“I thought it was uncertain whether unbelievers go to hell by your comment:
I see now I was wrong.”
Which way do you see it now from what I’ve said?
“Mt 7:7-8. I deny the truth of that quote. I want to know the truth about God, and I think you’ll agree that I’ve gone to great lengths to examine the Christian religion.”
“I agree with almost all of the moral teachings in the New Testament; that is, it is a very good moral guide (with some exceptions).
The Christian religion, for all its blessedness in relation to God, is only blessed because it is in relation to God. In other words, you’re not going to find God if you only examine the Christian religion. I don’t think I’m just hashing words. Religion is one thing (i.e. the study of god/gods). God is a person and someone. The Bible is not a book on morality. It is a book *testifying* (i.e. New and Old *Testament*) to the presence of God and His goodness and glory and what He has done and will do.
I think that is why you are fundamentally incorrect in your reading of the Bible and understanding what it says. You have to read the Bible with open eyes and heart. God is not going to force you to understand anything. I’m not convinced that he’ll answer you if you aren’t willing to bend yourself even a little bit (i.e. don’t throw pearls to swine). (not trying to call you swine, just the point that Jesus makes – don’t waste your time on those who refuse to listen. I do take that point to mean to let God take care of those people by working on their hearts. People get frustrated. God doesn’t).
What do you define a Christian as? What is a vehement believer? I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying about Revelations and your elder brother? I’m not sure I understand who you understand Jesus to be? I think that’s partially why I am having trouble grasping your conception of God-fearing Christians etc.
“I would have to say that you don’t know what the Bible says, thus it is unclear what He expects and wants.”
I have read large parts of the Bible, mostly the negative things, but I have a solid grounding in the teachings of Jesus too (that is, the teachings of Jesus as they were …Some things I don’t agree with will be addressed in this post.
The reason I said that – you have read many things but it really doesn’t seem like you’ve placed them in their proper place. I’m not saying that as a point to argue, but honestly, I feel like every quote you have brought up, I have answered, at least to my own satisfaction. I think there are at least two reasons we disagree
1. We have fundamentally different understandings of what the Bible says, and what the Bible says of God. I don’t think you have a good opinion of God =P, whereas I revere Him. Coming from such opposing perspectives, most differences we have will split depending on our perspective, rather than argument, because these things we disagree on are primarily opinion. There are sound arguments on both sides, and there is little resolution. There’s little to be done about this.
2. my point from above about not knowing what the Bible says – I’m not talking about something as subjective how much you know. Only you know how much you know (besides God) and only you know how honestly you are seeking God (besides God). “You don’t know what the Bible says” is an “objective” (as I can be about something close to my heart) description of your reading skills. Let me explain.
The Ezekiel passage 18:20 does in fact refer to the point that a father will die of his own sin yet his son will live because the son did not sin. Now your assumption then is that this passage refers to the fact that sin is not paid by another, therefore Christ could not have died for everyone’s sin. But that is completely irrelevant to the passage. Here’s why. Very basic points: Why refer to father and son? What does the prior context tell you? What does the subsequent text tell you? What do other passages that are similar tell you?
1/4. father and son – the basic reference is Exodus 20:5. “You shall not bow down to [an idol] or worship them; for I , the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
This is why they refer to father and son specifically. Sons were to be punished for their fathers’ sins…right? But the point of this Exodus passage is to focus on two things – when you sin, it is not just you that suffers from that sin. It is everyone who sees that, lives with that, and suffers from that sin. If you beat your kids, your kids learn that beating is part of life. There is a higher propensity to enter that kind of relationship or subject others to that kind of relationship. The sins of the fathers do in fact fall upon the children as a consequence.
A second, more important point, is that what is the result of sin in God’s eyes? When you follow God, He acknowledges that. You are blessed by this, not necessarily monetarily, with an easy life, or even with heaven. What you are blessed with is your knowledge and understanding of God – this is where peace, joy (not happiness, a traditional Christian splitting of hairs), and love come from. If you are tapped into the ultimate source of these things, we can give in this way too. A thousand generations of blessing vs. three generations of punishment. Yes, there is absolutely a reckoning, both ways, for what we have done and who we are (the former naturally being a product of the latter). But the lesson to be learned is that to follow God is not without its blessings. The costs make themselves evident.
2. prior text – Ezekiel 20:18 refers to a “proverb about the land of Israel:
‘the fathers eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’.”
Ezekiel 20:18 is stated by God to refute this statement. What people were doing were taking the sins of people and condemning their children for it (or their fathers etc). Three examples were given. Righteous man #1, unrighteous man #2 and righteous man #3. They are related - #1 = grandfather, #2 = father, #3 = son.
Neither #1 nor #3 are held responsible in God’s eyes for the sins of #2. So neither the son (#3) nor the father (#1) are held responsible for the actions of the father/son (#2). God goes through every example, and makes it clear what He is saying.
3. subsequent text – this is classic Christian theology. This essentially refutes statements declaring the Bible is about hell and condemnation. Verses 21-32 state:
a. do I [God] take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? Rather am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
b. If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he does will be remembered. Because of unfaithfulness he is guilty of and b/c of sins he has committed, he will die.
c. Yet you say, **** “the way of the Lord is not just” ****. I think that is something you can read if you’re interested in it. I think that’s what you are asking.
d. The text finishes with the repetition – repent! I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!
4. Refer to Exodus 20:5 for the basis of father and son. There are many other references of God declaring a set of people to be separated until X generation (ten usually being the number. Pun-ny, ha ha).
Now this is the fundamental reason for my questioning whether you are honestly seeking after the truth. I have never read nor heard of this passage before. I have a concordance and a Bible. These are the only things I used. I have eyes seeking to know what the truth is, from the text. I did not come to this text attempting to find a verse where Jesus’s payment for sin could not be true. I found this verse, given this question, true enough. I came with the belief that Jesus’s payment for sin must be true, so my perspective isn’t without its skew either. However, I think if you read the passage and understand what it is talking about, you know that it is not referring to a fundamental statement from God stating that sin is paid by the sinner alone and Jesus did not pay for people’s sin. You understand that this verse refers to sons not paying for their father’s sin. And that is it.
Now it took me around 15 minutes to do this. Possibly 30 if you’ve never done it before and didn’t know where to go or what to do – granted, I had help when I started this kind of thing. But even from the prior text within Ezekiel, not looking anything else up, but just reading the whole passage, trying to understand what the passage is about, you know that the passage is about people having to pay for other people’s sins. And we all feel that is wrong. So does God. He sees this happening, and He says something about it. I’m not sure where your understanding comes from. I feel like you could only have understood this passage to mean what you understood it to mean if you really didn’t seek the truth. I may be wrong – I don’t know your heart. But I know that you are very intelligent, and you could not have misread the verses. So I am left to conclude that you either haven’t read the entire section of the Bible that you are quoting, or you aren’t really seeking the truth. Only you know the truth of what I think, so I won’t say that again – but that is really what I understand of your Biblical references. And if you can find a Biblical reference that I cannot explain, that doesn’t really mean anything. You’re arguing with me, not God =P. He’ll have an answer, if you are seeking (I know you dispute that but…).
There is a difference between taking a stance and finding a verse to support that stance vs. taking a verse and extracting what it means in its original context and then drawing conclusions from it. When I quote the Bible, it is after having read that passage, finding its context, and then providing what I understand that means. It is not having taken a stance a priori and interpreting what a verse means. That leads to misinterpretation invariably (by someone).
“The point is that merely not believing in witches contradicts the Bible. Barely literate, scared peasants have no reason to doubt the Bible or its representative, the Church. And when the Church points out a witch, there is no reason to doubt the decision.
The Church is not God. The Church is made up of fallible people. And at that point, the only way people could read the Bible was if they knew Latin (i.e. had money/desire enough to become a monk. Nobility was by birth primarily). Only later was the Bible translated into the vernacular (the Vulgate) of…German? Not sure. Anyway, yes, people at that time had no real way to understand the Bible as to what it was, and what it said. People relied on priests, who were corrupt at times. That takes nothing away from God.
“Surely God would ensure the right decision is made.
Why is it that God would ensure the right decision be made? I’m not sure I understand how you made that conclusion?
I think you would only come to that conclusion if you feared death and God was your answer (i.e. the same fear and ignorance argument brought up a while ago). That’s not what God is offering.
“No more than I hold the guns used in last year’s Colorado massacre accountable for the actions of the students who opened fire. But if I could have prevented the students from having access to guns, I would. Similarly, if I could have prevented anyone who has persecuted homosexuals, or executed witches, supported slavery, or raped a captive or slave, from seeing the relevant quotes in the Bible, I would have.
I’m not sure which perspective you are taking on this. Here’s my interpretation: because this thing has caused something bad, we should prevent it from being used. As I have said before, this includes many things, including pens, paper, metal, guns, cars, money, our hands, brains, tongues, etc. If what you are saying is that inappropriate use of something should be prevented, then yes of course, by all means, inform people of what the Bible says. Give them the proper understanding of what it says and means. But you are not going to be able to prevent the misuse of anything even still. Anything. Anything you can think of will be misused. That’s the nature of humans. That’s not the creation of God, but that is who we became by our choice. God redeemed us from our own choice (original sin), but left us still able to make decisions – we just don’t have to pay the consequences for our prior indiscretions. That list I gave – there is not one thing that has is immune from being used to harm someone else. There never will be.
“It can only be the only way if some higher power has determined that it is the only way. Is God acting under a higher power?
God following a certain pattern does not equate with God following a higher power. I see an ant. It follows this very random path to a piece of food. Does that mean some higher power set its path? The path was set by itself, before, as ants drop scent markings (or something) as they search for food. When they get to food, they can easily follow the trail back to the food. That isn’t to say that God is random, of course, it is to say that just because we see someone following a pattern, it doesn’t mean that the pattern was set by someone else or something else. That’s just not the conclusion we can draw.
“He can’t accept humanity into Heaven only because He wants to, and the sins must be paid for (to whom?) somehow – with the death of His Son. Surely Jesus should go to hell/be separated from God forever, though, like would have happened to humanity if He had not died? The punishment that Jesus accepts for humanity’s sake should surely be the one humanity escaped by His goodwill?
I think this is addressed in the Gospel, that I mentioned before. Jesus is the only way because only He was perfect. The question is actually a very good one, and gave me pause…. It’s something I’ve wondered before – why did Jesus come back to life? I hear about His death all the time, and I never truly satisfactorily answered that question until recently. So pretty neat.
My answer is that He won’t accept people back even though He wants to because they are abhorrent. As before, they are stained with sin, and that sin must be atoned for. Only one person was capable of living a life without sin, thus only one person was pure, and only one person could act as the sacrifice for our sin. Jesus. So why did He have to come back to life? He acted as the firstborn, the first of a regenerated people. Romans 8:29 “For those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers.”
Now that doesn’t actually answer the question you have, which is, if Jesus was truly accepting the punishment of people, why doesn’t He suffer it forever? First, it is not God’s intention, I don’t believe, that any of us were to fall from Him. But once we accepted the responsibility of knowing the difference between Good and Evil (eating of the tree), then we accepted the consequences of our actions, and some of our actions lead away from God. Jesus’s death for us was indeed within God’s plan to set us free. But God’s plan was not just limited to keeping us from hell, God intended for us to be with Him. Thus He raised Jesus as the firstborn of this new people who would be in His presence. That is why Jesus was raised. First because He was perfect, sinless and blameless. And second because God intends for all people to be with Him, as Ezekiel and several other places say, thus Jesus raised from the dead to be our forerunner.
“And why God’s Son? There are examples in the Bible of people transferring their sins to animals, usually goats, and killing them to absolve the guilt (hence the word scapegoat). This is despite that fact that the Bible says animals do not have souls, which I’ve heard is the repository of sin. Why didn’t God use a goat? Or a lot of goats? Or just create a new animal solely for the purpose of bearing sins (the Zerg Overlord comes to mind). But that wouldn’t make a good story to stir the masses, would it?
The book of Hebrews has your answer. If you are seeking the truth you can read it. Of course, this is an internal consistency-type question…so you’ll probably have to read to Bible to see if it is internally consistent.
Next part =).
p.s. I wrote this pretty much right after you posted your first section, so it will be somewhat out of synch with your second posting, which has the Biblical quotes you are unhappy with etc.
| | #134 Paradigm[46361] | | 1Cust73.tnt3.det3.da.uu.net | Hey Zumbooruk,
Interesting set of friends =P =). I would have to say…I wouldn’t refer to them to get the truth. Maybe that’s harsh…but if it’s the truth you’re seeking, asking your friends who are doing something to aggravate you (at least in part) isn’t probably the best way ;). What are some of the things you disagreed with? Be interesting to find out =).
____________________________________________________________
"You, Paradigm, are a Christian. How many cancer victims have you healed today?
“I can say that I know people who have been saved from dying, starvation, war etc. by prayer. But you would say it is coincidence.” I enter this particular point timidly: we can check statistically whether this is true.
I believe that if He wanted me to do this, He would empower me to do so and He would heal people through me. I haven’t tried it, so I can’t say that I’ve healed any cancer victims.
I can say this though: there have been 212 studies on religion and health. (Matthews DA, Larson DB, Barry CP, The Faith Factor: An annotated Bibliography of Clinical Research on Spiritual Subjects volumes 1-3. NIH Research, 1993 and 1995 for differing volumes).
160 show religion is beneficial to health. 37 are neutral/mixed. 15 demonstrate harm. Some of the more interesting studies:
Open heart surgery patients (T.E. Oxman, “Lack of Social participation or
religious strength and comfort as risk factors for death after cardiac surgery
in the elderly”).
-232 patients 9% death rate
-non-church goers 15% death rate
-church goers 5%
-those who obtain 0%
“significant strength
and comfort” from their beliefs
Byrd CCU study – prospective, randomized, double blind protocol for 10
months in San Francisco. 192 – intercessory prayer, 201 – control.
Intercessory prayer group received prayer to the Judeo-Christian god on
their behalf by persons unknown to the patients and ICU staff, and research personnel (how did they know it worked then ;)? I think that is a grammatical error). Multivariant analysis was employed (i.e. rule out smoking and stuff like that).
Prayer people Control P value
CHF 8 20 <0.03
Diuretics 5 15 <0.05
Cardio-pulm arrest 3 14 <0.02
Pneumonia 3 20 <0.03
Intubated 0 12 <0.002
And so forth. Basically, there is a general trend for better health. A 28 year study (Strawbridge WJ “Frequent attendance at religious services and mortality over 28 years”, Americal Journal of Public Health 1997; 87(6), 957-61) following 6928 people demonstrated a 36% lower mortality rate, while accounting for age, gender, ethnicity, education, health status, and degree of social support. So it’s just not friends that accounts for this “health benefit”.
Still it’s just evidence, not proof.
(New Testament)
Mark: 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Who so curseth father or mother, let him die the death
I didn’t quite get the gist of what you were saying with this one =). (part of the next point?)
If God wants to have someone killed (it happens; if you disagree, say so directly and I will provide many more examples of him ordering people to kill others) are we to understand that He will say so directly, and that we can’t rely on the examples of the Bible and take the initiative ourselves?
Actually this story goes back further than that. Amalek, in fact, was a person. He was the son of Eliphaz, who was the firstborn of Esau. Esau is the one who “despised his birthright” (Genesis 25:34) and sold it for a bowl of soup. A man with very little sense of the consequences of his actions. Anyway, the Amalekites were descendents of this son, and eventually came to attack their own relations. So I think the general point to this story is two-fold:
1. God remembers those who oppose Him, not only for punishment’s sake but that we can see this and recognize His sovereignty. Exodus 17:14 (“write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.”
2. The path that we choose affects other people. It is in this way that sin often visits the children of those who sin. I think I mentioned this before. In other words, if you do crack, your kids are likely to do crack and their kids are likely to do crack etc. You learn what you see. Esau was a person who did not value God’s or his parents’ commandments. He married non-Jews (Exodus 26: 34) and gave up his birthright. (the latter is huge, but something I’ll talk about some other time maybe). His son learned this from him, presumably, and so forth. Here is the final character assessment of the Amalekites:
- Deuteronomy 25:17 (Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. )
- So note: the Amalekites killed the young and the old (the ones lagging behind) – what kind of people are they? More after logic.
3. God was illustrating that it was from Jacob that His people would come
4. God was demonstrating that yes, even entire people were under His judgment.
There are many examples of God meting out justice. There are far more significant ones. The Flood is a classic one. I think eight people survived the flood (I am not sure of the reference, I think Hebrews…??). Eight. Noah, his three sons, and their wives. What of it? God is God, and He will do that which is for us. The world at the time was completely filled with wicked people. You can be sure, absolutely sure, that God saved everyone who was not wicked. Why eight? They were the eight righteous ones. Everyone was offered a chance to board. What would have happened if the Flood did not happen? We probably wouldn’t be where we are today – but that’s all speculation at this point and irrelevant to my main point. God will do what He deems is just. And it will be. It may not seem like it, it may not feel like it – but it is. You’ve missed the point on this one again – God is exquisitely specific about the Amalekites, because they are a people who do not know Him (i.e. do not wish to know Him). It is not a general principle that He is advocating.
BUT. That is why people doing things is not God doing things or the Bible doing things. And that is why your logic below is flawed – it is the path to misinterpretation. Bascially, here it is - if you don’t accept that God is just, then forget about understanding the Bible. You are more than eager to believe that the courts will pass a right judgment, but you are also more than willing to allow a trial to be held each time someone is accused. Is God any less just? He will specifically say when a people are to be destroyed, not just go ahead and allow something to happen all the time because one example was given.
If you are really interested in this, read Job 1-2 then 38-40. That’ll bring some questions, no doubt =).
Amelek wages war against Israel
God says Amelek must be massacred for waging war on Israel.
Waging war on Israel is punished by massacre. <-- LOGIC ERROR
In 1948, for example, Arabs waged war upon Jews in and near Jerusalem.
Those Arabs must be massacred.
There is a jump in logic between the second and third statement. God never says that waging war on Israel is punished by massacre. It is not an “if, then” statement, except in the sense that if *God* says a people are to be destroyed, they are.
And, of course, love thine enemies.
I hope I really don’t need to answer this. It’s pretty clear what the answer is, but if you want an answer, let me know.
Deuteronomy: 21:11-3 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
First of all, what do you think people, in general, did after war? What happened in Kuwait? Women get raped when their men are killed. I am sure that was true back then, because it sure is true now. What you are saying is so backwards. If God didn’t say to do this, do you know what would have happened?
The Israelites would have raped women every time they won, even if it was only because of His blessing. Those women would have been kept as slaves around the house. They would not have had time to mourn their losses. They would have been given no official standing in society. They would have been used and tossed aside, to sleep in the dirt by the piss pool of your tent (shock value). This is what you are comparing things to. What God is saying is that if you desire a woman who is a captive from war, you make her your wife. First, you give her respect. You give her a place to live in your home. You leave her alone for a month, so she can have some time to think about things. You give her food. You do, in fact, allow her to clean herself and regain some dignity. You provide her with clothes. Finally, you give her standing, something she would never dream of in another society. That is what He is saying.
I want you to answer to this. Specifically, I want you to acknowledge whether this is something you agree with or not, and why, because that is such an incredible misinterpretation of those verses. And if that is no surprise, well what can I say, I guess you’ve misinterpreted a lot of verses?
What about a virgin who isn’t engaged, but is a citizen? Sure, you can rape her, but if found out you’ll have to pay her father (the pimp), and marry her forever:
Deuteronomy: 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
I think a little background helps here. Women had no means of money. They relied completely on their husbands for every source of income. That is primarily why Jesus so strongly said to care for orphans and widows. They had nowhere else to turn except their neighbors.
If a woman were raped, and she had no engagement, that meant she had no means to support herself and a potential child. This wasn’t a mechanism to get wives for sadistic perverts or money-grubbing fathers. Most fathers “put them away” or basically let them live a life without any potential for love, family or anything else. God is telling them to do something different, to allow them children etc.
At this point, I’d dare to say that you would call that my opinion, rather than the proper interpretation of the verse. That kind of makes me angry, kind of makes me sad that you’ve convinced yourself that you know that truth so very well.
Your views on pornography pale in comparison to rape.
I’m not sure what this meant.
____________________________________________________________
Why would omnipotent God not edit the Bible Himself, and have its message exactly as He wants it? As it is, readers must choose what to believe, not based on divine command, but on their own, flawed (in comparison to divine) morality, and get some things wrong.
The Bible is exactly as God wants it. Readers do not have to choose what to believe, they just have to read things without a heart seeking to interpret things for their profit. And God won’t compel that. I don’t think I’ve had very much difficulty in providing an interpretation that we both agree on with many of the verses you’ve brought up (as far as I can tell?) so I don’t get your point.
In fact, it is by God’s ‘silent assent’ that the injustices committed in the name of the Bible occurred, when people were too afraid not to follow every command of the Bible.
I’ll wait for your complete reply, I think I’ve addressed this already.
I think I’ve misinterpreted your beliefs. Do you still believe the Bible, the whole Bible, can be internally consistent? I don’t mean the machinations of Christianity – exactly why Christ must die, or what hell is and whether it is a punishment – but every individual tiny little mistake from the different Gospels reporting different speeches at Jesus’ trial to Genesis telling us that we were given all the animals for their flesh to eat contradicting Deuteronomy’s insistence that we can’t eat animals that chew cud or divideth the hoof (like pigs).
Yes, I do believe in the entire Bible, every part of it. If you think about the Gospel, what is it? It is the account of different witnesses about Jesus, using different writing styles, having different audiences etc. They will naturally stress different things, and know different parts of the story. It is not so very difficult to imagine that four different accounts of one story will be more complete than one alone – so you might want to consider why there are four of them instead of one. Your response (automatic?) is to say, “well, geez, what kind of god would do that? he must not exist or have made a mistake.” You may want to consider that He works through people because that is to our benefit. And people are limited. And so to have several works is more complete and allows us a more complete picture.
I don’t see where in Genesis you are referring.
Either way, as a Christian, I have been given the freedom to eat whatever I want. You may call that a mistake, you may as well call it part of a plan. I’m not being relativistic, just sort of blah about this conversation at this point.
“For if God were to make Himself known so very clearly, what option would that leave you? Would you not call that unjust, as you were left no choice (i.e. divine terrorism)?”
I don’t see the danger in knowing the truth. If I knew God exists and I knew I would go to hell for rejecting him, I would probably become a Christian.
I would, if God affirmed rape, not believe in God. But since He doesn’t, and He stands for everything that is good, I do believe in Him. My statement wasn’t about knowing the truth – there’s nothing wrong with knowing the truth. What I was saying was that even if you knew the truth
1. I don’t think you would accept it (note other examples)
2. Knowing the truth would also be a reason, if you are looking for reasons not to believe, to not believe because then God is just dictating your belief, rather than you having a choice in the matter. Like I said before, your hell complaint. Truth does not compel. It is just truth and shines out. If you turn your back, it doesn’t matter. It’s only when you look at the light that it does anything.
Satan exists, and He is evil. The Bible is about God so logically, the Bible doesn’t talk about much else (besides His people). So you obviously aren’t going to read much about Satan. I’m sure you could tell your Satanist web friend, but I think that would be kind of pointless wouldn’t it? There would just be another reason for him/her to spam off. And I’m not going to waste my time talking about/arguing with Satanists. The flaws are self-evident in that quote you provided.
“But I’m sidetracked. How can you justify the damning of those who were simply unsure of God’s existence?
Here’s why: Romans 1:18-20 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
The difficulty is that the creation has fallen with us. So the argument in Christian circles is whether the reference to the creation is in its pristine, unfallen state or even now. I am uncertain, and this is only one verse, which is why I can’t definitively say that I know the answer.
“What I’m saying is that the choice should not be between faith or not, but between morality or not – like the legal system of every civilized country. Of course, only the insatiably evil, the foolish or the defiant would reject God if He were known to exist, but that is the same for society’s criminals too.
I’ll wait for your reply to my analysis of laws and society without God.
In fact, it sounds almost too good to be true.
You would think that would encourage you to believe….
When I said people in general were timid rather than loving, powerful and self-disciplined, I didn’t say I abhorred it. I’m not asking them to be perfect; I don’t expect them to be perfect. I only stated the truth.
I understood this to be a rebuttal against my verse. My explanation of why people were not always powerful and loving etc was that you were expecting people to be perfectly able to fulfill that verse…misunderstanding? See later down.
“But I protest I never accused Christians; I accused the Bible. Let Christianity be tarred with the same brush only by association.
So were those lesbians were killed specifically because someone was fearing God’s command and went out and killed homosexual people? If people are just killing homosexual people, that can happen out of pure prejudice. I think it is a somewhat…sketchy argument to propose that all homosexual killings are due to that Biblical reference (or any killings unless specifically done in the name of the Bible). I’m not advocating killing lesbians – but I think your argument isn’t making sense to me quite yet.
I’ve given my argument regarding the Bible and Christian behavior. I think we should just drop that point because neither of us have changed our view.
“Basing morality on a book, however, is a rigid code that must assume perfection, not only because it came from God (or mortals, etc.) but because it can’t be changed. Once you start discounting items (like rape) you must be relying on “self-morality”, at least in part, and you’re as bad as I am.
I’ll have to wait for your reply to my comments. I don’t think you are bad, I just think you’re wrong ;).
Well, yes. But if you assume atheism rather than religion – I don’t make the rules. No-one made the rules. Self-determined morality does not work perfectly. Nor does Christian morality, though for different reasons – misinterpretation or literal interpretation (that actually covers all translation).
“I have nothing to declare except that humans are not necessarily not selfish, and I am very shocked to see that questioned"
That’s why I brought in that objection.
That’s my very point though. Christian morality is based on a God-given and driven set of morals. What you are offering is a flawed, imperfect set of morals. At best (in your point of view), they are equivalent. You say that the Bible is subject to misinterpretation – so is the law. That’s why you need to go to law school. The Bible can cross cultures where laws cannot (i.e. international law is an entirely separated field), etc. These are just stupid arguments I’m giving because I think I’ve addressed the main point…just waiting for your reply.
“I would argue that Thomas Jefferson was taught something in church, at home about God, etc.”
Agreed but….
That wasn’t my point. You were arguing that the Constitution should be the epitomy of an atheist’s government. I was making the point that the Constitution is Biblically based, despite your quote by Jefferson.
I only have to come up with one society to show that you cannot base your society on “universal moral codes” because there aren’t any. I provided the Inuit and my case rests. You only provided one case in the hundreds/thousands? of cultures that have come and gone that came up with some laws that agree with the Bible’s. You are responsible for proof that ALL cultures, without the Bible, can come up with universally good moral laws, otherwise, what you are offering is fundamentally unlikely to achieve an actual moral state in your theoretical atheistic country.
“Is a person’s **fear** of homosexuality wrong?”
It depends on your definition of wrong. Fear of homosexuality is irrational, counterproductive and dangerous, but the fear itself is not wrong if it is not acted upon. I don’t fear it, but I would rather not see two guys have sex.
“You, as an atheist, can only hope that these emotions do not take over, and that the “goodness of men” will be sufficient.”
Objection! I protest it is at least as likely that a Christian’s emotion overrides his Bible that it is likely that an atheist’s emotion overrides his moral code.
Emotion is not something you can legislate against, but it is often the seed of action, particularly something wrong or evil. Peasants who are afraid of witches will definitely burn the wrong people. The Bible speaks to emotion and indicates that we are not to act on that kind of emotion (2 Tim 1:7). We’re called to something better – not to just follow rules but to follow God. I’ve mentioned this before, and that’s why I so specifically argued the way that I did about the 2 Tim verse. I don’t think you agree so…?
I await your reply. =)
Paradigm
| | #135 Zumbooruk[48667] | | IPNAK1-C2.xtra.co.nz | It's been two weeks again and my reply is nowhere near finished. We moved to an apartment in inner Wellington recently, and another English assignment, coupled with some other issues, has kept me away from the computer. I did, however, have an long argument with an evangelist team outside Burger King ;)
Expect a reply within a week...maybe. Exams loom two weeks away, but I'll see what I can do. | | #136 Zumbooruk[49706] | | IPNAK1-C8.xtra.co.nz | | That's another week, but now I'm studying for three exams on Tuesday and Wednesday. I hope to post again on Thursday. Meanwhile, please post again to let me know you're still here. I'm sorry this is taking so long. | | #137 Zumbooruk[50256] | | IPNAK1-C8.xtra.co.nz | Hi Paradigm
If you're still checking this page please post again. I haven't time to type my huge intended post if no-one will read it. I'm sorry if I've offended you somehow.
I await your reply. :/
Zumbooruk | | #138 Paradigm[50365] | | 1Cust147.tnt1.det3.da.uu.net | heya dude,
still here =)
haven't offended me, but i don't think i'll be able to reply before June 26th, when i'm taking my boards.
i await your reply ;)
Paradigm | | #139 Zumbooruk[50631] | | 202-27-181-17.dialup.xtra.co.nz | Thanks for bearing with me. My brief window of free time has passed and now I have two imminent exams. I'll be free of them by Wednesday and if my two huge school projects are running to schedule, begin my reply. I'll regard June 25th as the deadline.
Met the evangelist team again (I think they're preaching every Friday night). This time they tag-teamed me. Do you believe angels visit individuals? I would have thought that God would be looking at the big picture and causing events to help the world rather than individuals.
Zumbooruk | | #140 Paradigm[50938] | | 1Cust15.tnt4.det3.da.uu.net | Hmm. I don't know much about angels. I only know of a few passages in Scripture that actually refer to angels. (Daniel and Revelations are the ones I can think of off the top of my head where angels played a significant role). In Daniel, Gabriel (or Michael?) is sent to Daniel to tell him about the future. It was specifically for Daniel and to his aid that this angel was sent.
Regardless of angels, I definitely think that God is concerned about individuals just as much as the big picture (i.e. He cares infinitely about both). It's part of that paradoxical nature of God (i.e. human yet divine, servant yet king, blessed are the poor, meek, etc)....
Jesus was very specific in coming to us. He came to tell us that we were no longer slaves to sin - that is a big promise, but a promise that holds true to each of us individually, and is carried out in our lives individually. The Gospel is full of stories about individual people who Jesus helps. There is also a collective sense to it, but that's my personal favorite topic so we won't go there (we'll be on it forever). So...I think there is definitely a very specific nature to God's attention to us all the way up to a very vast, incomprehensible nature to His concern for His overall plan for each of us and all of us together, of which we can only see tiny fragments.
Have fun with the evangelism team =). They'll probably learn their faith better talking to you =). I know I have =).
Paradigm
| | #141 Zumbooruk[52111] | | 202-27-178-163.dialup.xtra.co.nz | I won't have it done by this Saturday. I'm sick; I'm tired; I'm stressed and overworked and overcommitted. Someone up there must really hate me (not really; I'm achieving great results so He's not holding that against me)
Next week is the final week of school, and I will dedicate the first day of the holidays (next Saturday) to the reply.
Zumbooruk | | #142 Zumbooruk[54175] | | cache8.ihug.co.nz | I'm sorry; a school assignment blew up at the last minute, and I must delay another week, because I am away from home again. I'll return this Saturday and, come hell or high water (only now realized that that expression probably comes from Noah's flood), I'll have a huge reply here on Sunday morning.
Sorry again
Zumbooruk | | #143 Paradigm[54822] | | 1Cust178.tnt2.det3.da.uu.net | heh =). NP, take your time =)
Paradigm
| | #144 Paradigm[54823] | | 1Cust178.tnt2.det3.da.uu.net | heh =). NP, take your time =). I started 3rd year of med school so I don't have tons of time anyway =P.
Paradigm
| | #145 Zumbooruk[55064] | | IPNAK1-C8.xtra.co.nz | Hi Paradigm
I’m back, and this post is going to be huge, as I’ll reply to everything at once, not in installments. I haven’t finished replying to comment 133, and I’ll address the rest of that first.
____________________________________________________________
“I don’t believe that homosexuality is moral but that doesn’t mean I just leave homosexuals behind.”
But the Old Testament, in many places, tells you to stone sinners to death. From memory, it included rapists, murderers and adulterers (and maybe homosexuals; I’m not sure). I know that Jesus said that you should love thine enemies and, presumably, not kill all these sinners – thus acknowledging the contradiction himself. It is a contradiction: Old Testament says kill certain sinners, but Jesus says you should love them, and help them toward God. How do you reconcile the two, having said the Bible was internally consistent? (I’ll concede here, by the way, that in many cases death means the eternal death of no salvation rather than the body’s death, but I think in the places where it refers to stoning to death it must be talking about physical death.)
Appealing to your self-morality, Paradigm, I ask what seems immoral to you about homosexuality? Or is it purely God’s word? You have probably noticed that various forms of immorality are linked: rapists are more likely to murder, murderers to steal, and so on. There are people at school I avoid because they are evil, or bad, people. They steal money and shoes, hit and abuse others and are boorish and perverted. This is a generalization, of course. What I’m saying is that all this immorality is linked – not true every time, of course. Where does homosexuality come into this? Of the homosexuals I’ve met and heard of (one of whom is a friend of mine), their average morality seems (to me) to be that of heterosexuals. I see no correlation between less controversial evils and homosexuality, in the same way I see a clear correlation in a willingness to hit someone on slight provocation and to steal, when given a chance.
“I find that you are shaping your understanding of what a Christian should do based on what you understand Christianity to be, rather than understanding what God has intended, and judging the actions of Christians through that lens.”
My understanding of Christianity is from an atheist angle; I see the facts only. I see a contradiction – an irreconcilable contradiction – between the Old and New Testaments, as explained two paragraphs ago. Moses’ God wanted to stone some sinners. Jesus’ God intended to help sinners to become moral. While you may disagree with me (I can’t entirely see how), you must surely understand my point of view?
“You invariably favor yourself and your own ends.”
I unashamedly agree.
“I’m not sure how you drew the conclusion that the only loophole-less morality is one’s own”
Sorry, I understand I should have explained that. By loophole I mean an aspect of a moral code that still allows immoral actions, such as a legal loophole accidentally allowing tax evasion. Of course, the immorality can only be judged by another moral code. Here I realize I was not making any sense, because I was thinking of judging a loophole by self-morality only (the only option available to me as an atheist outside of the law). In view of that, saying self-morality is loophole-less is meaningless because I was only comparing it to itself. Sorry. It was late.
“Who are the people who argue for euthanasia? The young.”
Uh oh. I am very very much in support of euthanasia, though it may depend on what you mean. Euthanasia was a major debate across Australia recently, and New Zealand by association. Someone had a terminal illness and wanted to die, but was too crippled to commit suicide. This is what I mean when I’m talking about euthanasia. When people want to die, I say let them. For a start, it’s not anyone else’s business. Probably the most important part of my moral beliefs is that people can do what they like as long as it doesn’t hurt (in any way) others (including animals). I stick to that in general, though I realize there are big hypocritical holes in it, like eating meat. That is yet to be sorted out. Note that that is a moralist idea, not an atheist idea. Anyway, my point here is not examining my own beliefs (though I would like to do that later), but just emphasizing my horror at disallowing euthanasia. That, to me, is religiously intolerant, i.e. forcing your beliefs on others, and denies my most important ideal – freedom (I know it sounds like I’ve seen Braveheart too many times). Also note that those who support euthanasia are not necessarily the young (you may be right; I don’t know) but those who need it. Would you call them biased? I would call them the only ones with the perfect perspective.
“Who are the people who argue for abortion? The well.”
I haven’t decided my view on abortion yet, because either side to me seems hypocritical. I’m assuming you’re against abortions. First of all, let’s define abortion. Without your input, I’ll assume it applies to killing a baby between the moments of conception and birth, because that is the most common usage. Why conception? There is nothing there that wasn’t there before…damn. No doubt you believe the soul is created at conception? Until we agree on the existence of souls we can’t have this abortion argument. Should souls exist I agree that you shouldn’t kill their bodies, but I don’t think souls exist.
"Not one man in a thousand has either strength of mind of goodness of heart to be an Atheist.” – Samuel Taylor
I regret including this quote. You’re absolutely right – not all atheists are good. This was a little plug for me, and you quite rightly pointed its fallacy. I’ll abandon it now.
“The Inuit are a famous example. They leave their elderly and their children behind when times are difficult. They leave them to die, for the sake of the survival of their tribe. There goes your universal understanding of what is right and wrong.”
If the weaker must die so that some, at least, can live, that is a perfectly moral decision. Would you prefer that they all die? It’s harsh, of course, but there’s no avoiding it. I support that moral decision. It’s a choice between the lesser of two evils.
“I only need one example to prove that thesis and your internal consistency wrong.”
No! My words were:
“Some moral laws are largely universal; most if not all cultures…”
Due to the words “largely” and “most” my statement was qualified to allow exceptions. There are many more pressures on a society’s moral code than merely my innate morality idea. Culture, sustainability environment and need play a huge part – probably a bigger part than innate morality, but due to innate morality, societies tend to be tipped towards a set of approximately moral laws. It won’t be perfect; possibly, no moral code could ever be perfect. Morality is solely a human construct anyway – there’s nothing to judge perfection by except other moral codes, also created by humans (in my atheist scenario anyway).
“Pornography has probably been around for some time (like every other sin) but only recently has it been more generally acceptable.”
You could not be more wrong. You have it backwards. To take one example I know of, in ancient Rome, brothels were very common. In fact, a third of all buildings in Pompeii (ancient Roman city, covered in larva in 70BCE, I think, by the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius) are brothels. How do they identify brothels? By the pornography and female names on the walls. This must sound like I’m inventing figures out of the air, but I invite you to check. There were no Roman laws against it. Have you not heard the saying that prostitution is the oldest profession? The relatively recent controversy is because people only recently decided it was unacceptable, not acceptable.
“Abortion the same.”
I don’t know. Was abortion even possible before the 20th century? I know, however, that in the time of the Roman Republic (around the first century BCE) laws were decreed forbidding the abandonment of new-born children in the streets (you had to sell them to slave-dealers instead). Similarly, in China, daughters have been drowned at birth for thousands of years because the parents knew they couldn’t afford the dowry (I’m not sure whether that was legal or not, but I know it was common). So the ridding of unwanted children has been widely accepted until recently.
“Where will our next “understanding” take us?”
I’m thinking perhaps a shift towards my morality. That has generally been the theme in the last half millennium. America declared independence and with it came revolutionary ideals of freedom, religious freedom, and religious tolerance. These changes spread across the world. Another cornerstone of my moral beliefs is equality. Slavery was eradicated later (not initiated by America). Later, women were given the vote (first country to do that was New Zealand). Slowly, equality for the genders equalized (maybe is still equalizing). What’s our next ‘understanding’? First, reinforce the separation of the state and religion, taking down the recently erected monuments to the Ten Commandments in government buildings in some states of America, and legalize euthanasia. Nothing else comes to mind quickly. We’re quite close to my perfect moral system in law.
“If God never forbade it, it's OK.”
He did say that, or words to that effect. I can’t remember why I brought him up – maybe I just wanted someone to rant at – but I see his point of view. The Ten Commandments alone manage most evil. The fork to the kidney idea, I think, is covered by “Do unto others as thou would have done unto you”.
“You say that there is no reason for God to pay for the crime… I love my kid, and I would go to jail for them – reason = love.”
You missed my point. I’m not saying God must be selfish and that He should not pay the penalty for that reason. I’m saying that, since God is omnipotent, He could let everyone have salvation, and not pay the penalty. What’s the point? Who are you paying it to? Surely only Satan would enjoy the suffering incurred, and I doubt God intends to please Satan. What I’m saying is, no-one pays the penalty, including God.
Maybe I’ve missed the point. He must be infinitely just, I suppose. So Jesus takes the fall for humanity because the crime must be paid – to whom? To God, who, through His own pride, wants to be infinitely just for no reason other than another notch on the infinite belt. It’s counterproductive and it helps no-one. As justice goes, it’s not even very good justice either. If you manage to take the blame for something someone else did, for any reason, that’s not justice. That’s injustice. It might be noble, moral and good, but it is still unfair.
"If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy." - Thomas Aquinas
This was meant to be an aside, because Thomas Aquinas was the other upstanding Christian you mentioned earlier, along with Einstein, and I thought it would be handy if I could discredit Aquinas, as I’d already shown that Einstein was no Christian. My understanding of the quote is:
“If criminals should be punished [it’s a rhetorical question; of course they should be punished], heretics should be punished, i.e.
“It is equally valid to put criminals to death as it is heretics.”
The point was that he supported the punishment of heretics, an idea with which I had expected you would disagree. The Old Testament states you should stone false prophets to death, and I’m still not sure where you stand with the stoning idea. In fact, I’ll ask you directly: considering the Bible asks you, in many individual cases, to take sinners outside the city gates and stone them to death, would you do it?
Here ends the reply to comment 133. Next is reply to comment 141.
____________________________________________________________
“>I thought it was uncertain whether unbelievers go to hell by your comment:
I see now I was wrong.<
Which way do you see it now from what I’ve said?”
I understand unbelievers go to hell. Right?
“What do you define a Christian as?”
Good question, as we probably disagree. Er…loosely speaking, I’m thinking of those who believe the Christian God exists and make some effort to follow his teachings.
“What is a vehement believer?”
A fundamentalist, as opposed to many Christians (by my and their definitions) who, for example, aren’t against homosexuality at all, presumably because they accept that the Bible is not the sacrosanct Word of God and so on.
“I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying about Revelations and your elder brother?”
It wasn’t very important, only to emphasize that I know the Bible quite well. It was my brother’s opinion that the whole Revelations vision was likely to be inspired by illicit drugs. You’ve got to admit – it’s pretty trippy.
“I’m not sure I understand who you understand Jesus to be?”
Well, not the Son of God, for a start. However, if I were to accept the Christian scenario for the sake of argument, He would be God personified on Earth, contradicting much of what God had said before, thus making God fallible and imperfect.
I think that’s partially why I am having trouble grasping your conception of God-fearing Christians etc.”
Yeah. I’m thinking that the majority of those, throughout history, who believe they were Christians, were Christians. So we could take a 15th century European village at random, where the religion is Christianity, and be reasonably certain that most these villagers are going to go to heaven. What are the exact figures, by the way, of those going to heaven? I’ve got a feeling it’s a third. Is that from Revelations? Or is it 50/50? Anyway, the point is that our 15th century village, which is full of illiterate peasants and one literate Bible-believing firebrand preacher, has the Inquisition round from time to time to burn the occasional witch. You could accuse anyone of being a witch, and, like the God question, it’s unfalsifiable, so the ‘witch’ is screwed. And they <i>would</i> accuse witches. By mob rule, they would take out their frustrations on scapegoats. Ordinary Christians do it on the slightest provocation – look at the support for the principles of Nazidom in Germany in 1930s. Or look at old people blaming young people for the decline of modern society’s values, or computer games for violence…it’s the same impulse. Humans find scapegoats to hurt, and then <i>they feel righteous about it.</i>
“I feel like every quote you have brought up, I have answered, at least to my own satisfaction.”
True. On each, I think, I can see your point of view and understand your justification, though I don’t always agree. My earlier rant about exposing the Bible, etc. was foolish and pre-emptive, because I was upset and shocked, as a moralist, about the stuff I’d found (rape and slavery), which I hadn’t even mentioned yet. Sorry about that.
“Coming from such opposing perspectives, most differences we have will split depending on our perspective, rather than argument, because these things we disagree on are primarily opinion. There are sound arguments on both sides, and there is little resolution. There’s little to be done about this.”
I feel exactly the same way. We often seem to come to the same stalemates, and I think that is where the debate will eventually end.
“Now this is the fundamental reason for my questioning whether you are honestly seeking after the truth. I have never read nor heard of this passage before. I have a concordance and a Bible.”
Here I must admit I don’t have a Bible. I’ve made an effort to get one a couple of times, and was extremely surprised to find that bookshops don’t sell them (though I found one children’s illustrated version). So it’s difficult for me to check context when my source is positiveatheism.org. Looking at the context for the Ezekiel passage, however, I’m completely confused. First God says He’s jealous (shall I even go here? For a start, jealousy is bad quality, warned against in the Commandments, I think, and repeatedly by Jesus. God is jealous of the other gods who are being worshipped by those who hate Him. Isn’t that a lot like coveting your neighbor’s cow?), and will punish children to the third and fourth generation. Then you quote another part, which says the son will not be punished for the sin of the father. It seems a contradiction and I feel I’m missing something. Please explain again.
“…the passage is about people having to pay for other people’s sins”
I still don’t get it. When you say pay, you’re talking about some sort of punishment from God, right? Or do you mean just the consequences of the sin (like the victim suffers being murdered)?
“There is a difference between taking a stance and finding a verse to support that stance vs. taking a verse and extracting what it means in its original context and then drawing conclusions from it.”
There is value in both, certainly. Where I have an opinion that has been gradually formed over time from a multitude of sources and I need to debate it, I will find examples illustrating my opinion. That same goes for any debate. There’s nothing wrong with finding examples to illustrate points. Perhaps the Ezekiel thing was a bad example, though after what you’ve said, I still don’t understand its meaning. I’ll just trust you, then, that it doesn’t contradict itself; you seem to understand it better than I.
“The Church is not God. The Church is made up of fallible people…People relied on priests, who were corrupt at times.”
Of course they did. The priest would tell them: thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. He didn’t have to be corrupt to say that. It is a logical assumption, for peasants and for the priest, to suspect there may be witches about, especially after inexplicable plagues, so they find some. As I see it, the Bible supports the killing of witches. How can you say it doesn’t? Or rather, how can you say that those who killed ‘witches’ knew themselves to be sinning?
“Why is it that God would ensure the right decision be made? I’m not sure I understand how you made that conclusion?”
a) He is infinitely just.
b) It is unjust that someone be killed as a witch when they’re not a witch.
b) He has the power to ensure the right decision.
So, He should ensure the right decision. We can see, though, that He was unwilling to enforce morality. I don’t see why. Same applies to all evil everywhere.
“…because this thing has caused something bad, we should prevent it from being used.”
I can see how you came to think I thought that, but it’s not accurate. I don’t approve of censorship of the Bible.
“…inform people of what the Bible says. Give them the proper understanding of what it says and means.”
Here is the crucial difference between our perspectives. To be very blunt: when I read, in the Bible, that homosexuals should be killed, my understanding is that God desires homosexuals to be killed. Same with adulterers, false prophets, etc.
It seems to me that when you read, in the Bible, that homosexuals should be killed, your understanding is that God desires them not to be killed. Despite the teachings of Jesus, I don’t see how you can get there. Surely <i>some</i> sinners have to be killed? Deuteronomy is full of it, with specific instructions on how to kill them: take them outside the city gates and stone them to death, usually.
So, to me, the proper understanding of what it means and says, includes to kill homosexuals etc. To you, the proper understanding of what it means and says, does not include killing homosexuals, etc. We have an irreconcilable difference, because I am convinced that Moses really meant that homosexuals should be killed.
“That’s not the creation of God, but that is who we became by our choice.”
When God created humans (for the sake of argument), He created the genes and thus the human psyche. With the genes and the human psyche comes all the imperfections and failings of humans. What I’m saying is that evil was built into this creation of God. We are programmed for it. And if He wasn’t satisfied with what He created, why didn’t He change us? Human 1.01 Patch:
- tendency towards logical thought toned down for balance reasons.
- faith buffer increased.
- bugs concerning acne when running certain configurations fixed.
- cleanliness improved for optimum performance.
“God following a certain pattern does not equate with God following a higher power. I see an ant. It follows this very random path to a piece of food. Does that mean some higher power set its path?”
In a sense, yes. The things affecting its path are its own decisions, of course, and the terrain, the environment, wind direction (if its sense of smell is that acute), etc. God, however, if He is omnipotent, is not going to be limited by anything – anything at all – but His own decisions. His equivalent of terrain is the laws of physics, but He is above them, and can break them at will. Unlike the ant, which may be limited by insuperable obstacles, God is limited only by Himself. If the ant was only limited by its own decisions, we probably see it teleport to the food, teleport back to the nest, and then hang out with all the ant-chicks. It wouldn’t appear random and would make a lot of sense to an observer, because we would see the process and completion of all the ant’s goals done quickly and effectively.
“My answer is that He won’t accept people back even though He wants to because they are abhorrent. As before, they are stained with sin, and that sin must be atoned for.”
Why must it be atoned?
“That is why Jesus was raised. First because He was perfect, sinless and blameless. And second because God intends for all people to be with Him, as Ezekiel and several other places say, thus Jesus raised from the dead to be our forerunner.”
So He was raised (thus not paying the penalty of separation from God) because He didn’t deserve death. That defeats the whole purpose!
“God intends for all people to be with Him”
It’s not going to happen, though. Lots of people are separated already. So God is thwarted?
Next my reply to comment 142.
____________________________________________________________
“Interesting set of friends =P =). I would have to say…I wouldn’t refer to them to get the truth.”
True, though they can always be relied upon to offer logical argument. Sorry though, I definitely thought you would offer the same arguments, which was presumptuous.
“I believe that if He wanted me to do this, He would empower me to do so and He would heal people through me.”
Let’s look at the verses again:
Mark: 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mark: 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Mark doesn’t qualify those statements. He doesn’t say: they shall lay hands on the sick, and if God feels like it, they shall recover. To me, the verses imply that Christians can use their own initiative in employing their supernatural powers.
As regards the studies on religion helping health, I’ll make a very dishonorable withdrawal. Why does God protect Christians over non-Christians? You said he wanted everyone to go to heaven, so He could let the Christians die and save the non-believers in the hope that at least some of them would convert in the time they gain. Of course, I would be saying the opposite, that He should protect His own, if the results were different ;) Heads I win, tails you lose. Ignore this.
However, I will say that stress is closely related to health, as is your social life. Being an atheist, I think, is more scary (thus stressful) than being a Christian. There’s no-one looking after you, and you can only rely on yourself. By contrast, Christians get a (false) sense of peace, joy and love, and don’t have to worry about the purpose of life. Also, Christians automatically have the community of the local congregation for social support, and youth groups, etc. While that may seem a long shot, I recall that people with cats or dogs tend to have a longer life expectancy than those without. Clearly, any kind of companionship is helpful to health.
Mark: 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Who so curseth father or mother, let him die the death
”I didn’t quite get the gist of what you were saying with this one =). (part of the next point?)”
Again, my fault. This section was something I put to my friends, all of whom had abandoned the Old Testament, but adhered to the New Testament. Its intent was to show that not only did Jesus embrace the Old Testament, but also that He supported (at least in one instance) its death penalties. I had intended to remove it before posting to you, because there is no need to prove the value of the Old Testament to you.
“1. God remembers those who oppose Him, not only for punishment’s sake but that we can see this and recognize His sovereignty.”
OMG! Are you kidding me? God would wipe out a city just because He has a pet peeve to prove? To set an example for the rest? That is characteristic of the worst tyranny!
Why doesn’t God kill me? I totally oppose Him, and though I don’t actually hate Him, I think by what we can see here and in other parts of the Bible I can expect to be high on His hit list. Don’t tell me he loves me; sometimes you’ve got to be tough to be kind, and I’ve done more against Him than Average Joe Amalekite.
“2. The path that we choose affects other people. It is in this way that sin often visits the children of those who sin.”
I think I’m getting it now. We’re talking about the cycle of poverty – the vicious downward spiral. In New Zealand we have problems with third generation dole-bludgers, and what you’re saying is that, should a parent be unemployed his whole life, so in turn will the children. I accept that – it’s certainly true. I don’t accept that you should kill the children. In fact, killing the children because they are <i>probably</i> evil is, to me, extremely evil. Won’t you even give them a chance? Maoris (native New Zealanders) tend to be unemployed or criminal more often than average, and that is a major source of racism in New Zealand. There is the occasional scandal where it is shown that police, or teachers, or school-children, or citizens, are biased against the integrity or intelligence of the Maori race in general. You are doing the same thing: discriminating against the Amalekite race because they are probably evil. And I protest they probably weren’t evil. Esau didn’t value his birth-right. I don’t know what a birth-right is, and if I did know, I suspect I wouldn’t value it much, but I’m not particularly evil, even by Christian standards. What is a birth-right? Other than having a dodgy forefather (we’re all descended from the two dodgy original sinners anyway), the other thing Amalek did wrong was attempt to prevent the Israelites from entering Israel. What would America do if Mexico invaded California? As you probably know, Mexico used to control California around 1846. Similarly, the Israelites used to control Israel. You might argue that it was theirs, but then you might as well hand California over to Mexico.
“The Amalekites killed the young and the old (the ones lagging behind) – what kind of people are they?”
God had recently slain the first-born of every Egyptian family! That’s worse than Amalekite border control. However, in view of that, I can see why He wanted Saul to kill the children. Eye for an eye…God wanted revenge. How petty.
“God will do what He deems is just. And it will be. It may not seem like it, it may not feel like it – but it is. You’ve missed the point on this one again – God is exquisitely specific about the Amalekites, because they are a people who do not know Him (i.e. do not wish to know Him).”
This is tricky to argue. I am judging God’s actions by my own morality, the most part of which is generally accepted. He’s done plenty of seemingly immoral things. <i> It may not seem like it, it may not feel like it – but it is.</i> That’s the chilling sounds of brainwashing. Did you read Animal Farm by George Orwell? Remember the long-suffering hard-working donkey, who sometimes doubted when things contradicted his morality? He would say: “Napoleon says so, so it must be right.” It was a commentary on communism, of course, but I think the same applies. There are people alive today who revere Stalin, killer of millions. It is vital that leaders are accountable to the people, and the people must decide how and by what standards the leaders are held to account. What happens when leaders are given absolute power? They are corrupted. Corrupt leaders:
- kill people (they must justify it, of course, so they make up their own moral code and call it true.)
- declare wars for to further their own ends.
- demand that they are paid obeisance to/are worshipped as or like gods
- are sexually perverted (refer to God’s support for rape)
- enjoy having slaves/power over people (note: the world is God’s footstool and God’s acceptance of slavery)
God has done all of the above and more. I’m not saying that God is evil or corrupt, of course; I’m saying He doesn’t exist. Why the similarity, then, between corrupt humans and this God who doesn’t exist? <u>Because corrupt men were harnessing the power of religion to fool the masses.</u> Just like Stalin followers, when confronted with the facts, Christians avoid, deny or rationalize them. Can’t you see it? It fits so well. Please, Paradigm, find a tyrant from history. Alexander, Nero, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, any one will do. Then compare his corrupt actions with those of God. Compare his propaganda with Deuteronomy. Keep an open mind.
“If you are really interested in this, read Job 1-2 then 38-40. That’ll bring some questions, no doubt =).”
Intrigued, I consulted the skepticsannotatedbible.com (I haven’t checked all my quotes and contexts because the computer I’m using to type this hasn’t got a modem, and it’s rare that the other isn’t in use). It’s an online Bible with hyperlinks from many verses explaining why they are absurd, contradictory, or immoral. Anyway, OMG! Hmm…just realized that that abbreviation really isn’t appropriate. Well, it illustrates what I said before. The corrupt are protecting themselves and their kind by ensuring that God is not questioned. Is that not your interpretation? Your comment 133 said:
“He did not expect me to blindly believe everything I read and heard. He welcomes questions”
Job 1 and 2 show that people must blindly trust in God. I keep thinking: trust God to do what, exactly? He doesn’t protect them from harm. He doesn’t protect them from Satan. He seems to be protecting an extra 5% above the norm of them from cancer. I have another item to add to the list of corrupt actions: playing malicious games with your people, causing them to suffer for your own benefit. Compare it to the gladiators of ancient Rome (Christian martyrs were torn apart by lions in the arenas for general entertainment too – how ironic). God was playing a petty game of one-upmanship with Satan. Remember Wallabystein’s SCV battle at the beginning of this battle report? God’s observing. You’re His SCV.
“God never says that waging war on Israel is punished by massacre. It is not an “if, then” statement”
Not explicitly, but God gives His reason – because they attacked Israel three or four generations ago. Why is there no room for initiative?
“First of all, what do you think people, in general, did after war? What happened in Kuwait? Women get raped when their men are killed. I am sure that was true back then, because it sure is true now. What you are saying is so backwards...I want you to answer to this. Specifically, I want you to acknowledge whether this is something you agree with or not, and why, because that is such an incredible misinterpretation of those verses.”
You have expressed outrage, and I’ll express it right back. First of all though, I agree that without this commandment the situation would be much worse for the victims, but that is not relevant. You said that I was comparing the commandment to the situation if the commandment had not been issued. I didn’t actually compare the scenario to anything. If I had compared, and I am now, I’ll compare it to my moral code: Absolutely no raping whatsoever. Why wasn’t that included in Deuteronomy? It’s simple. I have nothing more to declare except my outrage that you didn’t think of this, and that you appear to be justifying this – God’s command – that is ultimately rape.
“I think a little background helps here. Women had no means of money. They relied completely on their husbands for every source of income. That is primarily why Jesus so strongly said to care for orphans and widows. They had nowhere else to turn except their neighbors.”
You’re justifying it again, where I believe there can be no justification. This is a difference of opinion, of course, but I find it shocking that this is what you believe. Why must you lean on women’s lesser role of the time? You acknowledge that that is immoral, and you acknowledge that the Bible is a moral code, so don’t you acknowledge that there is something missing here? Another commandment: Women shalt have equal rights as doth men.
Your justifications are all based on comparison with the scenario that the commandments were not issued. Try comparing it to a scenario where God had issued some decent moral values, instead of this stupid excuse for morality. He should have issued the Bill of Rights. Funny that Thomas Jefferson did a better job than our Lord the Infinitely Just.
“At this point, I’d dare to say that you would call that my opinion, rather than the proper interpretation of the verse.”
Definitely not. I reiterate that I agree with your understanding of the world as it would have been without the commandment, but I don’t see why you fail to see another obvious alternative: better commandments.
“Your views on pornography pale in comparison to rape.
I’m not sure what this meant.”
I meant that, if you think pornography is detestable, your view must surely be that it is awful, terrifying, sick, perverted, loathsome. That’s my view, though it was presumptuous of me to think you would agree with me. Apparently you think rape is justifiable. My mistake.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Well, that was harsh. Don’t be (very) offended; surely you understand my point of view as an atheistic moralist? I hope I’ve misinterpreted your intent.
“Why would omnipotent God not edit the Bible Himself, and have its message exactly as He wants it?”
Sorry – ignore that. By this time I had assumed you would have abandoned the Bible due to the rape rules. That’s a problem with large posts like this – we each try to predict the other’s reaction, and argue against it pre-emptively, and sometimes we’re wrong.
“I don’t see where in Genesis you are referring...Either way, as a Christian, I have been given the freedom to eat whatever I want.”
Sorry – forbidden food wasn’t in Genesis. The contradiction is between Genesis and Deuteronomy:
Gen 9:3 “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you.”
Dt. 14:7-8 “Nevertheless, these shall ye not eat, of them that chew the cud or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel and the hare, and the coney; for they chew the cud, but divide not the hood; therefore, they are unclean unto you. And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their dead carcass.”
As a Christian, you have not that freedom, unless you’re going to tell me that it was a law for the Israelites only, which I’ll then argue is racist and unreasonable.
“I would, if God affirmed rape, not believe in God.”
WHAT? Are you deliberately messing with my head? You say the Bible is exactly how God wants it. I point out that it supports rape, and you justify that. Then you say it doesn’t affirm rape. What we have here, I think is a major breakdown of communication. One of us is misunderstanding something important. What is your definition of rape? Mine is: sexual intercourse without consent of one (or more, I suppose) party/ies. Marital status is irrelevant; rape can occur within a marriage.
Let’s see the quote again:
Deuternomy: 21:13:And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
I doubt the woman consents to sex. Thus it is rape. Whether she does or doesn’t consent appears to be immaterial to God.
“What I was saying was that even if you knew the truth…I don’t think you would accept it (note other examples)”
I’m saying the same about you, of course. Refer to the corrupt men thing.
“Knowing the truth would also be a reason, if you are looking for reasons not to believe, to not believe because then God is just dictating your belief, rather than you having a choice in the matter. Like I said before, your hell complaint.”
I would not think God is dictating my belief if He showed Himself to me, because then it wouldn’t be a matter of belief (faith), but a matter of fact. I don’t resent Isaac Newton for revealing his laws of physics. Here’s exactly what I said:
“I don't believe anyone should prostitute their minds to religion for the possibility that God exists, only to avoid the possibility of hell. The God debate should be concerned with truth, not fear. To believe otherwise is to believe God is a terrorist with the ultimate weapon, the hostage taker of souls.”
I only meant that one should not believe in God’s existence because hell might exist; one should believe in God’s existence because God exists. Don’t you agree? Do you believe in God to escape hell, or because God exists? In other words, do you believe out of fear, or because of the truth?
“Romans 1:18-20 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – His eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
The difficulty is that the creation has fallen with us. So the argument in Christian circles is whether the reference to the creation is in its pristine, unfallen state or even now.”
I’m not sure what you mean when you say that creation has fallen with us. If we’re going to talk about creation we’d better sort out evolution; we haven’t discussed it yet, possibly because we’ve avoided it deliberately (I know I have). I expect you don’t believe in evolution, because you must believe Earth was created 6000 years ago, like the Bible says. However, I’ll wait for your reply before I try to cover evolution. Anyway, I’m thinking that what you mean is that, because creation has fallen, God’s invisible qualities are no longer clear. I point out that it says “since the creation of the world’ though, so His qualities should be clearly seen forever. Hmm…I think I’ve misinterpreted what you said. I will protest, though, that His qualities – eternal power and divine nature – are not clearly seen. Eternal power because I seriously doubt His omnipotence, and divine nature because I seriously doubt His existence.
“In fact, it sounds <i>almost too good to be true.</i>
You would think that would encourage you to believe….”
That’s my point. It encourages people to believe – groundlessly. What I’m saying is – it’s almost too good to be true, because it is too good to be true. That is, it is false.
“So were those lesbians were killed specifically because someone was fearing God’s command and went out and killed homosexual people? If people are just killing homosexual people, that can happen out of pure prejudice. I think it is a somewhat…sketchy argument to propose that all homosexual killings are due to that Biblical reference”
Yes, that’s true. While the details were not clear on the killer’s religion, the location was the south of the USA, where (so I’ve heard) the populace are overwhelmingly fundamentalist Christian. My purpose was only to show that homosexuals are still attacked or victimized quite frequently (in New Zealand too) – a point that isn’t very important to the debate. Ignore it.
“I’ve given my argument regarding the Bible and Christian behavior. I think we should just drop that point because neither of us have changed our view.”
I would like to persevere just a little. Here’s the verse:
Lev. 20:13: If a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have com-mitted an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.
I’ll admit that it doesn’t say explicitly to kill homosexuals; it only says that they will be killed in some way. However, I suspect that some people throughout history thought that God’s will is best served if homosexuals are killed due to the reading of this verse. I think these people did not realize their folly, and truly believed they were doing God’s will. Possibly some of them didn’t feel entirely comfortable with it, and maybe read the book of Job, then realized that sometimes God’s intent does seem cruel, but is in some way not cruel. I ask you – had that verse been omitted from the Old Testament, do you agree with me that less homosexuals would have been killed throughout history? Don’t refer to God’s will, because I’m not (currently) arguing that He wants homosexuals dead. I’m asking about the objective consequences of the verse’s existence.
____________________________________________________________
On angels: the evangelist team (and here I’m going to ask you about the specific beliefs of other Christians again, which I realize may be frustrating for you; I apologize) had largely had close encounters with angels. One was a reformed lesbian who had abandoned her partner after having recurrent dreams about God, with angels in. She also talked about having a vision (as opposed to her dreams, which happened when she slept – I privately discounted those as just dreams) about a man in white – Jesus, I think, who held her hand to a withered plant that represented herself and caused it to grow. Though I didn’t want to insult her in this way at first, I eventually compared it to people believing they were abducted by aliens, and other paranormal phenomena. She had admitted herself that she was likely to have ended up in a mental hospital without God’s help, so I’m thinking a hallucination is likely. She said her sister had also been visited by an angel, and one of the other evangelists had a friend who’d been visited too. This, to me, seems quite a significant presence of angels on Earth (skewed Christian sample I know; evangelists are clearly very seriously Christian). Anyway, they said they would pray that I would convert that night, and implied that God would reveal Himself to me via an angel. I remain unconverted, but curious about angels.
____________________________________________________________
Now I want to have a little plug for atheism. I’ll explain a few of the reasons I tend towards atheism, and if you can dissuade me, maybe I’ll become religious ;)
I’ll start with what I know – what we are all sure of. I think therefore I am. I exist. It is debatable, of course, whether senses can be utterly relied upon, but for the sake of progress, I’ll assume the universe and everything I can perceive within it – with senses or with scientific instruments – exists. I haven’t seen God yet, but I see that religions exist. Lots of them. Whether God exists or not, I see that there is a human disposition to invent false religions, because only one or none of the thousands is true.
I examine a Christian scenario. Is this phenomenon explainable? Not very. I can conclude that God wants to hide His existence for some reason, because otherwise He would not have allowed all these other religions. So far, I’m thinking that a God who wants to hide His existence is really weird and probably inaccurate, but I will delve deeper. I check God’s official word on the subject – atheists are fools and God’s existence is clearly to be seen. I disagree. I also see that God hiding His existence is best explained by the idea that he wants to test ‘faith’. So far, in my examination of exactly what I know, I have not seen any value in faith as it pertains to finding the truth. Having examined the religions of the world, however, I can see that faith can be a root of destructive action. God says humanity is above the animals (dominion over them, as I recall). Reason is what sets humans apart from the animals. Faith, however, denies reason.
I examine an atheist scenario. Is this phenomenon explainable? It is. It may be in the genes somewhere (note I’ve accepted evolution back when I acknowledge the universe). Why would humans evolve genes for religion? Though I came to my own conclusion, I recently found it put quite neatly in Enduring Love by Ian McEwan:
<i>Suppose faith gave status, especially to the priest caste – plenty of social advantage in that. What if it bestowed strength in adversity, the power of consolation, the chance of surviving a disaster that might crush a godless man. Perhaps it gave believers passionate conviction, the brute strength of single-mindedness.
Possibly it worked on groups as well as on individuals, bringing cohesion and identity, and a sense that you and your fellows were right, even – or especially – when you were wrong. With God on our side. Uplifted by a crazed unity, armed with horrible certainty, you descend on the neighbouring tribe, beat and rape it senseless and come away burning with righteousness and drunk with the very victory your gods had promised. Repeat fifty thousand times over the millennia, and the complex set of genes controlling for groundless conviction could get a strong distribution.</i>
Before you attack this, note that the book is a fiction book and this extract is from the wandering thoughts of the main character.
So, for my atheist scenario, I can explain the existence of religions. Ironically, for my Christian scenario, the explanation for the existence of religions – that God wants to hide His existence – is weak and unconvincing.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
<strong>What things don’t fit in my atheist scenario?</strong>
Creationists often ask where the universe came from – it looks like something came from nothing, which the first law of thermodynamics says is impossible.
Translated to a physics statement that is: "How could you get energy?" Physicist Victor Stenger says:
<i>The Universe contains energy and matter, and you have a law of physics called the Conservation of Energy (it's also called the First Law of Thermodynamics), and that appears to have been violated (or so these think it was violated) at the origin of the Universe.
Well, if you look and you ask yourself (from observations of the Universe), "What is the total energy of the Universe?" It turns out, that, as far as we can tell, it's zero.
Every measurement that we make indicates that the total energy of the Universe is balanced between the rest energy that's in the matter, the kinetic energy that's in the motion of objects, and then this is balanced by a negative potential energy of gravity. And the total energy is very close to zero. So, if the total energy is zero, and if you had zero energy to begin with, there was no violation of energy conservation. There was no miracle that created energy at the beginning of the Universe (other than, perhaps, a little quantum fluctuation that is, again, in agreement with existing knowledge, and so would not be a miracle).</i>
What else might appear to disprove my atheist scenario, or at least make it appear to be unlikely? That is a question for you, not me. I expect you have a lot to challenge.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
<strong>The Ease of Belief</strong>
To examine the human disposition for religion from another point of view, consider this: it is very common for people to believe in unlikely, nonsensical or supernatural ideas and creatures. Most obvious examples include the witches and vampires of yore, but more recent examples include the masses who believed the Blair Witch Project, the thousands who won’t repeat “Candyman” three times into a mirror (though I haven’t seen it, Candyman is a horror movie where the aforementioned chant summons the hook-wielding Candyman, who will slay you and practically everyone you’ve ever met), and the famous story from early last century when every man and his dog in England was out hunting aliens when H. G. Wells’ <i>War of the Worlds</i> was recited over the radio. Urban legends, ICQ pranks, circular E-mails – it’s embarrassing to the human race. The foundation for these beliefs is the power of narrative. A good story is easily believed, particularly when it is too huge not to be true. Tell someone paint is wet and they will doubt, but it takes a disturbingly small effort of persuasion to convince Average Joe that one man died for the sins of the human race, and rose again.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
One final query about the Ten Commandments: the third states that one must not work on the Sabbath. Doesn’t that worry you? Emergency services, etc. must keep working, and I think we’ll find no shortage of Christians working in them. It also states that slaves, animals, and <i>aliens within the city walls</i> may not work either. It seems that Christians are shirking their duty, not enforcing that rule on others.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Ok, I’m done now. Over 8800 words – sorry about that, and very sorry about the delay. I know it's been about a month, though I wrote it only in the last four days.
Looking forward to your reply (but no need to hurry)
Zumbooruk
| | #146 Zumbooruk[55499] | | IPNAK1-C8.xtra.co.nz | Hi Paradigm
I've been reading through the old posts, and found that 126 answers a lot of what I asked this time about the Old Testament vs. the New Testament - sorry about that. Rereading it, though, I'm not satisfied, and I think a divinely-recognized contradiction exists. Specifically:
"We’re called to something different in the NT. We are no longer the means through which God will enforce His holy will and justice, and we no longer live spiritually under those laws...So the punishments you were talking about (mainly stoning), are not to be carried out by us."
That's a contradiction, I think. Do we need to define contradiction? I'm thinking: two things that cannot be true at once. As it pertains to God's commands: two commandments that cannot both be obeyed at the same time.
You say: "However, in the NT, there is something…different afoot – such a man was not stoned, but expelled from the church. But he is welcomed back upon his repentence"
Apart from the contradiction accusation, my question is: why the change? It's a drastic change (though it never caught on). What circumstance changed in order to make the change still moral? Here I'm comparing to a real law system (defined by democracy's agreement on self-morality; wanna argue? Anti-gay videos that a Church group had imported were recently banned in NZ, showing the moral code law is based on is not that of Christianity. If you argue it is <i>largely</i> based on the Bible I'll agree, but I'm asking where the conflicting morality comes from)...I'm comparing to a real law system, where laws are changed to face new understandings of morality (where it is decided old laws were immoral, or less moral - doesn't apply to God; his commandments are perfect), changed circumstances (instituting martial law, curfews, State of Emergency...I don't know much about that stuff) or new threats (like computer crimes). What changed?
My final question is: are you sure about that? Of course, I have no Bible, but all I remember supporting it is Jesus acknowledging the contradiction between 'eye for an eye' and 'turn the other cheek', which doesn't fully convince me as to the elimination of all death penalties against criminals. Though I also remember the one about submitting to the government. Maybe that does cover everything. What I'm asking is, what are all your sources for this idea?
| | #147 Zumbooruk[58337] | | IPNAK1-C6.xtra.co.nz | It's been three weeks and it's increasingly obvious you're not going to reply. Why? I may have offended you deeply; if so I am sorry, but even the harshest of my criticisms, I believe, were fair. Or perhaps, having finally abandoned your faith, you have lost the will to reply, a broken shell of a man?
Whatever the reason, please reply, even if to say that you refuse to argue any longer with such a self-opiniated arrogant moron, if that is your view, or that you no longer feel that the debate is useful, and you can't spare the time. I'll understand.
Are you there, Paradigm? | | #148 Paradigm[59412] | | 1Cust56.tnt25.det3.da.uu.net | Heya - sorry. I haven't checked in a extremely long time =P. Hmm. Not a broken shell of a man =P. My faith is actually quite well; I've have some invigorating discussions w/ some other believers about whether Paul believed Jesus was going to come in Paul's lifetime or not. I think the other guy is wrong but whatever ;).
I am going to have an extremely difficult time replying. I have started my third year of med school - I work around 8am until 5-7pm and then I have to study so I don't kill someone the next day. That makes it difficult to reply...I started something of a reply but it will probably take even longer than your last reply =). If you're willing to wait, I can put it up sometime in the next two months, but if not...this discussion might be over =.
Either way, it's been really good to hear what you've had to say. I disagree with much of what you've said and what you think the Bible is saying, but there's little I can do to change that. That's mainly up to you (and Him). Nonetheless, you aren't *that* self-opinionated or arrogant....
=)
Anyway, I'll try to gather some sort of argument together, but it's been almost three months since I remember reading about our discussion so I'm not sure I'll remember the context of why you said something or even why I said something. I'll just have to pass on some points....
Paradigm | | #149 Zumbooruk[61252] | | IPNAK1-C6.xtra.co.nz | | As regards Paul, my evangelists told me that when Paul said that the kingdom of heaven on earth would come within his lifetime, he was right; the kingdom on earth had come, because people were becoming Christian rather than Jewish. I disagree, but what can you argue? It's a very convenient interpretation. | | #150 Paradigm[63649] | | 1Cust188.tnt1.det3.da.uu.net | I'll try to get to your reasons for atheism sometime this weekend (no promises =) ). I have the weekend off for some fortunate reason, and I think I had some thoughts already down about your reasons so it'll be good to finish that off. I'll look up the other post and put in my hand this weekend too, perhaps.
I disagree about Paul in some ways. The kingdom of heaven is here and now, but that is not because there are more Christians than Jews. The KOH by its nature is inclusive rather than exclusive (this is one of our biggest disagreements but let me just make that statement ;) ), so there being Christians > Jews is moot and not addressing the issue. The KOH is here and now because God's plan is being fulfilled - that KOH on earth. What the debate I was having was over was whether the second coming of Christ, as detailed in Revelations, woudl come in Paul's lifetime or not. I'm not sure what your evangelists woudl say about that =). What do you think?
Paradigm... | | #151 Zumbooruk[63807] | | 210-54-227-115.adsl.xtra.co.nz | I've moved, temporarily, to an apartment without a phone line, so I'm writing from an internet cafe without my usual resources. My understanding is that Paul and many other Biblical authors, and Jesus Himself, thought that the Second Coming, i.e. the end of the world, was imminent (a misunderstanding which I think is odd; surely this is the kind of thing they would have asked Jesus when He was alive). I'm not entirely clear on what your view on this is from your post, but I quote:
Mark 13:30-31 <i>"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."</i>
It seems that Jesus himself thought Armageddon would come within a lifetime. He doesn't actually know the exact hour and day, though, which doesn't sound very omnicient to me.
Mark 9:1 <i>"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."</i>
Depends, of course, on whether kingdom of God means the end of the world.
Hebrews 1:1-2 <i>"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds</i>
Peter 1:20 <i>"Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest <strong>in these last times</strong> for you"</i>
Peter 4:7 <i>"But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer."</i>
So regardless of the exact meaning of the 'Kingdom of Heaven' (which is so grand a title I would have hoped it actually meant something was actually verifiably going to happen), we can see that Paul and Jesus thought Armageddon was imminent. For a Christian, that looks like a problem. For an atheist, it looks like a seriously good marketing ploy - imagine the hysteria and power you could wield if you could persuade people the End was Nigh.
I would have liked to ask the evangelists but they aren't coming back any more, probably because they're scared of me. Yeah. That's probably it.
Finally, don't hurry to answer at all. I won't be able to answer until September 9th at the earliest, and even then I might not have the internet.
Zumbooruk |
Back to the Battle Report
|
|
Home
Forum
Starcraft Tournaments
