Slashdot Mirror

Correct, so far as you go, but you also might also desire to get your facts straight, or perhaps read more carefully. The laws under discussion (apparently AB 205 and AB 25 according to this GoogleNews listed source) would make gay partnerships legally recognized with all the same rights as a marriage, but a different name -- a rose by any other name and a nicely Solomonic decision, pissing off the Radical Gays who demand both name and substance, and Christian Zealots who would deny them both. A nice compromise, therefore. =)

When macrealist refered to the law, he refered to it as "same sex unions", which seems a semantically accurate description of gay partnerships. The later reference was "What ever you think of same sex marriages"... which, macrealist's bad grammar aside, indicates only that this is part of the same spectrum of debate; and most people, whatever their position on the benefit or harm of it, would agree that gay marriage, domestic partnership rights, and "civil unions" are all part of the same debate, while disagreeing where the line should be drawn.

God hates shrimp.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

The order is given in relation to eating, but YHWH seems pretty unequivocal about the acceptability of scaleless and finless water beasties what with using words like "unclean" and "abomination".

Further interest in the matter?

God hates shrimp.

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
9 These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

The order is given in relation to eating, but YHWH seems pretty unequivocal about the acceptability of scaleless and finless water beasties what with using words like "unclean" and "abomination".

Further interest in the matter?

I think I know the reason that lawyers are so hated and often seem childish. It is because they try to follow the law to the letter but not to the spirit, and will often sue those that are following the law to the spirit but not the letter. And since our (Awerican) laws are supposedly based on the Bible, I would just like to point out that we are supposed to follow the spirit of the law, not the letter (2 Corinthians 3:6). Why going against the spirit of the law while following the letter seems childish is because that is what children tend to do. Only after growing up a little do people learn that laws are meant to be followed to the spirit; those who don't seem(are?) childish.

Grok: To understand at a deep level. From the book "A Stranger in a Strange Land". Stop using it!

haha, i'm no bible thumper, those are just the ones i could remember off the top of my head.

Yep... they're the ones that leap to mind when one thinks about the commandments. I suspect that this is because they're the ones that the people who are bible thumpers talk about the most. After all, they wouldn't want the commandments to seem at all unreasonable, would they? :)

Have YOU ever read the bible? Ever read leviticus? Believe me there is very little ambiguity as to what is to be done and not done.

Absolutely! I love Leviticus. It's a great book for pointing out how comically ridiculous the bible is.

Protestants and catholics shouldn't even be mentionned as they don't follow the bible, only the parts they pick and choose.

I've never met a christian who didn't follow just the parts of the bible that they pick and choose. Ever try to punish a christian for wearing clothing woven of two kinds of material? They get all huffy and offended! But it's right there in my old friend Leviticus and they just ignore it. Absolutely shameful. Yet many of them have no trouble quoting other parts of Leviticus and expecting people to care.

Do not confuse the bible with the slew of churches out there that have their own agenda.

The bible is just a book. It can't harm anyone directly (unless you hit them with it; it does tend to be rather thick). Churches, on the other hand, are often harmful.

It's pathetic how many people call themselves protestant/catholic as if it's an ethnic group and not a religion.

I suspect that to many people their religion is more important than their ethnic group. It's just a categorization and frankly I appreciate the warning. :)

haha, i'm no bible thumper, those are just the ones i could remember off the top of my head.

Yep... they're the ones that leap to mind when one thinks about the commandments. I suspect that this is because they're the ones that the people who are bible thumpers talk about the most. After all, they wouldn't want the commandments to seem at all unreasonable, would they? :)

Have YOU ever read the bible? Ever read leviticus? Believe me there is very little ambiguity as to what is to be done and not done.

Absolutely! I love Leviticus. It's a great book for pointing out how comically ridiculous the bible is.

Protestants and catholics shouldn't even be mentionned as they don't follow the bible, only the parts they pick and choose.

I've never met a christian who didn't follow just the parts of the bible that they pick and choose. Ever try to punish a christian for wearing clothing woven of two kinds of material? They get all huffy and offended! But it's right there in my old friend Leviticus and they just ignore it. Absolutely shameful. Yet many of them have no trouble quoting other parts of Leviticus and expecting people to care.

Do not confuse the bible with the slew of churches out there that have their own agenda.

The bible is just a book. It can't harm anyone directly (unless you hit them with it; it does tend to be rather thick). Churches, on the other hand, are often harmful.

It's pathetic how many people call themselves protestant/catholic as if it's an ethnic group and not a religion.

I suspect that to many people their religion is more important than their ethnic group. It's just a categorization and frankly I appreciate the warning. :)

Lets look at this from a physics standpoint. It is a glove with wires coming out. There are ...no rockets to fire...

Hey, credit where credit is due! That's my idea!

BTW, note the similarity of the actual scuplting system to this proposal.

That which has been is what will be,
That which is done is what will be done,
And there is nothing new under the sun.

-- Ecclesiastes 1:9

I think you overestimate it, and are clearly ignorant of some key facts with regard to it.

You assert that, however I see nothing in your answer that suggests that you have a better understanding than I do.

That's not true at all. You are ignoring many books from several Eastern philosophies. The Baghavad Ghita, the Dhamapada, the Analects of Confusius, the I Ching, Sun Tzu's Art of War. All of these have been around for at least centuries, in some cases millenia, and are at least as "tested" as the Bible.

The two points I made about the bible were the claims it made and it's authenticity. On those grounds I think we can eliminate Art of War. I have to admit that I haven't read any of the others, or studied them so I will have to take your word for that. However each of those books (as far as I am aware) was written by one author, not ~40. The bible is more unique than you imagine.

Fictional characters, on the other hand, have no support for their existence other than documentation, and therefore need a lot of it.

You are saying that the more evidence of someone's existence, the less likely they are to have existed. That is a novel argument.

Not really, in light of the actual evidence. The fact is that there are no complete copies older than 900AD, and there are no fragments older than 300AD, and there is strong evidence that entire books have been removed (the Dead Sea Scrolls are a prime example, but by no means the only one).

Now that is interesting. Here was I thinking that the dead sea scrolls proved that it was possible for the bible to traverse those thousands of years without being altered chinese whispers style. This argues somewhat against your next point.

Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence of tampering in the Bible itself. For example, the idea of a soul is a Greek concept, and doesn't exist at all in historical Hebrew philosophy, which holds that it is the Jewish race that is eternal, not the spirit or essence of the
individual.

Read Ezekial 37. Then read John 11:24. There is a clear conception of the resurrection, or life beyond the what we see. Secondly if you read the New Testament it is clear that the nation of Israel is replaced by the church (all Christians) under Christ. This body (and all the people in it) is raised to new life with Christ (fulfilling the OT prophecies). The Old and New Testaments hang together.

Interestingly, the vast majority of early converts were brought in by Paul, a greek who never even met Jesus. I'm sure it's mere coincidence that many of the miracles performed by Jesus had supposedly also been performed by the patron demigod of Paul's home village.

Ah, on that you are completely wrong. Paul was a Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin (this is one of the purest of the 12 tribes of Israel). That fact that he came from Tarsus, has no impact on his being a Jew. I'd also be interested to know where get the information on the demigod. I mean that seriously, I would like to dig further. You might note that in Acts on the day of Pentecost that thousands convert under the teaching of the disciples (Paul was an apostle not a disciple).

Additionally, the term "Son of God" was quite common in those times, and refered to any Jewish male. Everyone else was a "Son of Man".

This is a little left field but I'll comment. Jesus is referred to as both.

(Sorry, I don't have any documentation of any of this handy, these are just a few things I remember from the World Religeons class I took many years ago. The instructor, whose name was Moorman, spent 8 years in a seminary college before dropping since, as a homosexual, he was considered an irredemable sinner

I think you overestimate it, and are clearly ignorant of some key facts with regard to it.

You assert that, however I see nothing in your answer that suggests that you have a better understanding than I do.

That's not true at all. You are ignoring many books from several Eastern philosophies. The Baghavad Ghita, the Dhamapada, the Analects of Confusius, the I Ching, Sun Tzu's Art of War. All of these have been around for at least centuries, in some cases millenia, and are at least as "tested" as the Bible.

The two points I made about the bible were the claims it made and it's authenticity. On those grounds I think we can eliminate Art of War. I have to admit that I haven't read any of the others, or studied them so I will have to take your word for that. However each of those books (as far as I am aware) was written by one author, not ~40. The bible is more unique than you imagine.

Fictional characters, on the other hand, have no support for their existence other than documentation, and therefore need a lot of it.

You are saying that the more evidence of someone's existence, the less likely they are to have existed. That is a novel argument.

Not really, in light of the actual evidence. The fact is that there are no complete copies older than 900AD, and there are no fragments older than 300AD, and there is strong evidence that entire books have been removed (the Dead Sea Scrolls are a prime example, but by no means the only one).

Now that is interesting. Here was I thinking that the dead sea scrolls proved that it was possible for the bible to traverse those thousands of years without being altered chinese whispers style. This argues somewhat against your next point.

Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence of tampering in the Bible itself. For example, the idea of a soul is a Greek concept, and doesn't exist at all in historical Hebrew philosophy, which holds that it is the Jewish race that is eternal, not the spirit or essence of the
individual.

Read Ezekial 37. Then read John 11:24. There is a clear conception of the resurrection, or life beyond the what we see. Secondly if you read the New Testament it is clear that the nation of Israel is replaced by the church (all Christians) under Christ. This body (and all the people in it) is raised to new life with Christ (fulfilling the OT prophecies). The Old and New Testaments hang together.

Interestingly, the vast majority of early converts were brought in by Paul, a greek who never even met Jesus. I'm sure it's mere coincidence that many of the miracles performed by Jesus had supposedly also been performed by the patron demigod of Paul's home village.

Ah, on that you are completely wrong. Paul was a Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin (this is one of the purest of the 12 tribes of Israel). That fact that he came from Tarsus, has no impact on his being a Jew. I'd also be interested to know where get the information on the demigod. I mean that seriously, I would like to dig further. You might note that in Acts on the day of Pentecost that thousands convert under the teaching of the disciples (Paul was an apostle not a disciple).

Additionally, the term "Son of God" was quite common in those times, and refered to any Jewish male. Everyone else was a "Son of Man".

This is a little left field but I'll comment. Jesus is referred to as both.

(Sorry, I don't have any documentation of any of this handy, these are just a few things I remember from the World Religeons class I took many years ago. The instructor, whose name was Moorman, spent 8 years in a seminary college before dropping since, as a homosexual, he was considered an irredemable sinner

It's supposed to be a parody of the Biblical book of Revelation. The problem is that they've got things backwards. The "unbelievers" are those who do follow the beast, not those who don't. In Revelation, "the beast" is not something good. It represents the AntiChrist and Satanic power.

I've never heard any religious icon refer to themselves or their actions as being "evil" and most church people would distinguish between the two as being different, with sin being forgivable, but evil being a static state.

I always liked Deuternomy 25:11-12 myself. :->

No, becoming a Christian must be a personal decision. One must confess and repent of his sins, and he must put his personal trust in the Son of God as his Lord and Savior. Becoming a Christian means having a profound change of heart that reorients your inclination from evil to good.

In a theocracy, there is no room for choice. You become a "Christian" because you're born where people expect and demand you to be a Christian. So, there is no change of heart, no active following of Christ's teachings, and no rebirth - birth of the spirit.

I do not believe the Crusaders were Christian. Allow me to present one of many contrasts. Jesus Christ taught in the synagogues. He said that He had been sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24). The resurrected Christ told His disciples to be witnesses for Him in Jerusalem (Acts 1:8) So what did the ever-so-devout Crusaders do when they went to Jerusalem? They burned down the synagogue with thousands of "the lost sheep" inside. The Jews all burned to death. It was a huge inferno; a 9/11 on steroids (comparing body counts). Yeah, great "witnessing" there, Christians. And there's no case for self-defense either (although there can be in the beginning of the Crusades, but that's only pertaining to the Muslim invaders).

The evidence says they weren't Christians. A ricer can put a Jaguar hood ornament on his 1984 Honda Accord, but it's still a crappy Accord. He can slap a V-Tec or a TYPE-R sticker on it, too. That doesn't change anything inside. Same thing for religious dunking. They can plaster emblems of the Cross on everything they own. Don't mean a thing if they don't really know the King (Rev. 17:13).

Whereabouts in the bible does it say "and ye faithful shall not gaze upon or take part in scenes of horror"?

anyone remember the crusades?

- most games today actively promote violent and/or sexual behaviour;
- any kind of violent and sexual behaviour is a bad thing.

Starting with the second point, I think that we can all agree that this is utter nonsense.

The only sexual behavior that is not bad behavior is that which occurs privately within the exclusive bounds of a faithful, marital relationship between one man and one woman. Even if a game were to depict this good sexual behavior, that very depiction of it would be wrong. No sexual activity, good or bad, real-life or fictional, is to be put on display for the world. Marital sex is a private matter between the participants sharing their bodies and souls, one with another, as one flesh.

You might argue that it should be okay to watch "marital" sex between artificial "people." But this is laughably a moot point when it comes to computer games (except possibly for the Sims). When we have a game with a Mr. and Mrs. Anderson getting frisky in the master bedroom, then we can address this issue further.

What makes good sex good is its exclusive and secret nature. The husband is the only one (ideally) who has ever seen or ever will see his wife's nakedness. The wife is the only one (ideally) who has ever seen or ever will see her husband's nakedness. Their bodies are a special secret they guard for themselves. Anybody else can have a sexual experience, but not with the individuals who are committed to each other in matrimony. Each side feels special and unique that with over 6,000,000,000 people in the world, they have chosen and continue to chose each other - and no other - to share their sexuality.

The man can say, "She wants to have sex with me and no one else!" The woman can say, "He wants to have sex with me and no one else!" Man: "My body is ALL for YOU!" Woman: "My body is ALL for YOU!" You can imagine what that does to the hormones! And the mutual love. A third person, whether a participant or spectator, contaminates the marital purity and spoils the "one flesh" sexual intimacy.

From the Christian standpoint, the only sexual behavior (whether a real act or a fictional depiction) that you should ever see is your own sexual behavior with your spouse.

Qualification: The above applies mainly to gratuitous depictions of sexual behavior. Pictures, diagrams, and other media presentations that are created for medical or academic purposes that benefit humanity are acceptable as long as the media are used only for their intended, noble purposes.

Cool, Mohamud quotes Jesus.

"He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666." - Revelations 13:16-18

It was not technologically possible to implement this until today. Clearly, so long as there is cash, it is not possible to implement. This prophesies a cashless society in addition to prophesying how the control of trade down to the consumer level is necessary to complete the control.

The most significant thing I've seen relating to this in recent years is Chex Systems, where banks blacklist people from obtaining a bank account. Ironically, in the short term, that increases dependence on cash for these people, but also shows just how difficult it is to completely depend on cash. That's where it becomes a demonstration of the power the instituions will have in a digital monetary (or cashless) society.

The scary thing is that no one has been able to challenge Chex Systems despite laws against blacklisting. Who can take on the banks? This looks really bad when you consider the impact systems such as Chex Systems will have when cash is eliminated.

Where this can overlap with DRM, copy protection and other things, is in the dependence on bits of information to implement. Posters have regularly noted that the broadcast flag only becomes a large scale issue when broadcast becomes entirely digital, which is inevitable given our current direction and mandates by our own government.

Contrary to other posts responding to you, this is something the Romans, in their wildest imaginations, could have only dreamed of. This type of control is clearly unprecedented, and we have yet to witness it. But, the digitization of economics is a necessary prelude to the control over people in order for our worst tyrant in human history to complete his mission.

It's also worth noting that the UPC symbol on most products you buy and sell today consists of 15 digits, although only 10 or 12 are numbered at the bottom. You can learn to read it, it is very simple. Out of those 15 digits, 12 are variable, and thus used to identify products. The other 3 are constant. They are 666. They are the first two lines, middle two lines, and last two lines. To see that they are 6s, look for a code with a 6 on the right side. You'll see the pair of lines for it are the same.

To learn to read UPC symbols, it consists of 20 symbols. 10 symbols are the left hand side digits 0 through 9. The other 10 symbols are the right hand digits 0 through 9. Each digit is respresented by two lines. Thus, there are 30 lines total for the 15 digits.

I wouldn't assume that the UPC symbol itself will be the mark. But, it's worth noting just how developed technology is with regards to Revelations 13.

Yes, they do have that in common, but that seems an awfully petty similarity in light of the fact that they quite literally worship different deities.

Maybe the best way to contrast the two (i.e., Judeo/Christian versus Islam) is found in Matthew 22:36-40. Compare that summary of everything in the Old Testament to what Mohammed said in the Quran.

Genesis 6:3 reads:
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [1] man forever, for he is mortal [2] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
[1] Or "My spirit will not remain in"
[2] Or "corrupt"

Speaking as a Christian, my personal viewpoint is: God didn't want it because man is corrupt, and so I don't either. I don't need to stay in this world any longer than it takes to complete God's plan for me. The next world is far better, why focus on this one any longer than God asks of me?

I'm all for better quality of the life we have, but I believe the lengthening of it will inevitably lead to the same situation in Genesis 6 because of human nature -- which will not change.

Here is an interesting article titled New Discoveries in the Biochemistry of Aging Support the Biblical Record.

That is the definition of hell.

Perhaps you can give reference to yours and I will give you some of mine :-)

Definately. What aspect of God do you think is immoral?

A small pick in very random order:
- Capital punishment for insulting someone
- Killing scores of totally innocent children and babies
- The LORD is a warrior?
- Numerous examples of capital punishment for silly reasons
- Capital punishment for exercising your human rights
- Be careful with how you pronounce things
- We're intentionally being lied to by your god and we are chosen (from the start)

What happens to you after death isn't a compensation payout for all the bad stuff that happened in life...

Matthew seems to have another idea about it than you do

The non-Christian funerals I've been to have tended to be very emotionally intense.

But then I'd argue that they value that person's life a lot more: after all, one who has only a good 70-80 years to live should be more appreciative of that time than someone who expects to live for more than 1000000000000000 years.

I am curious though: if you are at a funeral of an atheist person, then your guess would be that this person has just begun an eternity or suffering. What do you say in consolation to the family members?

My point was that not all things require complex solutions. There's nothing wrong with simplistic answer to a simplistic problem.

Well, as a technical-minded person, I subscribe to the KISS principe.

The passage you mentioned in Genesis doesn't quite cut it.

I think you're referring to the AC comment. That wasn't mine.

Quote me a passage that says God was surprised and ignorant.

The claim is that sin exists only outside of this entity. My claim is that this entity knew all along that they would eat from this tree. In that story, he certainly does not present a role model for parenting. What if he said "ok, guys.. you did a bad thing.. now you must pay by cleaning all of Eden with a toothbrush, ha ha!" -- the only thing they were told in advance was to obey some silly rule that they could not fully grasp before breaking it.

The very first reaction to sin is trying to pass the blame.

Don't forget that they were told that they would surely die. They were not more guilty than a kid that ate from a cookie jar and lies about it when the parent shouts "I'm

That is the definition of hell.

Perhaps you can give reference to yours and I will give you some of mine :-)

Definately. What aspect of God do you think is immoral?

A small pick in very random order:
- Capital punishment for insulting someone
- Killing scores of totally innocent children and babies
- The LORD is a warrior?
- Numerous examples of capital punishment for silly reasons
- Capital punishment for exercising your human rights
- Be careful with how you pronounce things
- We're intentionally being lied to by your god and we are chosen (from the start)

What happens to you after death isn't a compensation payout for all the bad stuff that happened in life...

Matthew seems to have another idea about it than you do

The non-Christian funerals I've been to have tended to be very emotionally intense.

But then I'd argue that they value that person's life a lot more: after all, one who has only a good 70-80 years to live should be more appreciative of that time than someone who expects to live for more than 1000000000000000 years.

I am curious though: if you are at a funeral of an atheist person, then your guess would be that this person has just begun an eternity or suffering. What do you say in consolation to the family members?

My point was that not all things require complex solutions. There's nothing wrong with simplistic answer to a simplistic problem.

Well, as a technical-minded person, I subscribe to the KISS principe.

The passage you mentioned in Genesis doesn't quite cut it.

I think you're referring to the AC comment. That wasn't mine.

Quote me a passage that says God was surprised and ignorant.

The claim is that sin exists only outside of this entity. My claim is that this entity knew all along that they would eat from this tree. In that story, he certainly does not present a role model for parenting. What if he said "ok, guys.. you did a bad thing.. now you must pay by cleaning all of Eden with a toothbrush, ha ha!" -- the only thing they were told in advance was to obey some silly rule that they could not fully grasp before breaking it.

The very first reaction to sin is trying to pass the blame.

Don't forget that they were told that they would surely die. They were not more guilty than a kid that ate from a cookie jar and lies about it when the parent shouts "I'm

That is the definition of hell.

Perhaps you can give reference to yours and I will give you some of mine :-)

Definately. What aspect of God do you think is immoral?

A small pick in very random order:
- Capital punishment for insulting someone
- Killing scores of totally innocent children and babies
- The LORD is a warrior?
- Numerous examples of capital punishment for silly reasons
- Capital punishment for exercising your human rights
- Be careful with how you pronounce things
- We're intentionally being lied to by your god and we are chosen (from the start)

What happens to you after death isn't a compensation payout for all the bad stuff that happened in life...

Matthew seems to have another idea about it than you do

The non-Christian funerals I've been to have tended to be very emotionally intense.

But then I'd argue that they value that person's life a lot more: after all, one who has only a good 70-80 years to live should be more appreciative of that time than someone who expects to live for more than 1000000000000000 years.

I am curious though: if you are at a funeral of an atheist person, then your guess would be that this person has just begun an eternity or suffering. What do you say in consolation to the family members?

My point was that not all things require complex solutions. There's nothing wrong with simplistic answer to a simplistic problem.

Well, as a technical-minded person, I subscribe to the KISS principe.

The passage you mentioned in Genesis doesn't quite cut it.

I think you're referring to the AC comment. That wasn't mine.

Quote me a passage that says God was surprised and ignorant.

The claim is that sin exists only outside of this entity. My claim is that this entity knew all along that they would eat from this tree. In that story, he certainly does not present a role model for parenting. What if he said "ok, guys.. you did a bad thing.. now you must pay by cleaning all of Eden with a toothbrush, ha ha!" -- the only thing they were told in advance was to obey some silly rule that they could not fully grasp before breaking it.

The very first reaction to sin is trying to pass the blame.

Don't forget that they were told that they would surely die. They were not more guilty than a kid that ate from a cookie jar and lies about it when the parent shouts "I'm

That is the definition of hell.

Perhaps you can give reference to yours and I will give you some of mine :-)

Definately. What aspect of God do you think is immoral?

A small pick in very random order:
- Capital punishment for insulting someone
- Killing scores of totally innocent children and babies
- The LORD is a warrior?
- Numerous examples of capital punishment for silly reasons
- Capital punishment for exercising your human rights
- Be careful with how you pronounce things
- We're intentionally being lied to by your god and we are chosen (from the start)

What happens to you after death isn't a compensation payout for all the bad stuff that happened in life...

Matthew seems to have another idea about it than you do

The non-Christian funerals I've been to have tended to be very emotionally intense.

But then I'd argue that they value that person's life a lot more: after all, one who has only a good 70-80 years to live should be more appreciative of that time than someone who expects to live for more than 1000000000000000 years.

I am curious though: if you are at a funeral of an atheist person, then your guess would be that this person has just begun an eternity or suffering. What do you say in consolation to the family members?

My point was that not all things require complex solutions. There's nothing wrong with simplistic answer to a simplistic problem.

Well, as a technical-minded person, I subscribe to the KISS principe.

The passage you mentioned in Genesis doesn't quite cut it.

I think you're referring to the AC comment. That wasn't mine.

Quote me a passage that says God was surprised and ignorant.

The claim is that sin exists only outside of this entity. My claim is that this entity knew all along that they would eat from this tree. In that story, he certainly does not present a role model for parenting. What if he said "ok, guys.. you did a bad thing.. now you must pay by cleaning all of Eden with a toothbrush, ha ha!" -- the only thing they were told in advance was to obey some silly rule that they could not fully grasp before breaking it.

The very first reaction to sin is trying to pass the blame.

Don't forget that they were told that they would surely die. They were not more guilty than a kid that ate from a cookie jar and lies about it when the parent shouts "I'm

That is the definition of hell.

Perhaps you can give reference to yours and I will give you some of mine :-)

Definately. What aspect of God do you think is immoral?

A small pick in very random order:
- Capital punishment for insulting someone
- Killing scores of totally innocent children and babies
- The LORD is a warrior?
- Numerous examples of capital punishment for silly reasons
- Capital punishment for exercising your human rights
- Be careful with how you pronounce things
- We're intentionally being lied to by your god and we are chosen (from the start)

What happens to you after death isn't a compensation payout for all the bad stuff that happened in life...

Matthew seems to have another idea about it than you do

The non-Christian funerals I've been to have tended to be very emotionally intense.

But then I'd argue that they value that person's life a lot more: after all, one who has only a good 70-80 years to live should be more appreciative of that time than someone who expects to live for more than 1000000000000000 years.

I am curious though: if you are at a funeral of an atheist person, then your guess would be that this person has just begun an eternity or suffering. What do you say in consolation to the family members?

My point was that not all things require complex solutions. There's nothing wrong with simplistic answer to a simplistic problem.

Well, as a technical-minded person, I subscribe to the KISS principe.

The passage you mentioned in Genesis doesn't quite cut it.

I think you're referring to the AC comment. That wasn't mine.

Quote me a passage that says God was surprised and ignorant.

The claim is that sin exists only outside of this entity. My claim is that this entity knew all along that they would eat from this tree. In that story, he certainly does not present a role model for parenting. What if he said "ok, guys.. you did a bad thing.. now you must pay by cleaning all of Eden with a toothbrush, ha ha!" -- the only thing they were told in advance was to obey some silly rule that they could not fully grasp before breaking it.

The very first reaction to sin is trying to pass the blame.

Don't forget that they were told that they would surely die. They were not more guilty than a kid that ate from a cookie jar and lies about it when the parent shouts "I'm

That is the definition of hell.

Perhaps you can give reference to yours and I will give you some of mine :-)

Definately. What aspect of God do you think is immoral?

A small pick in very random order:
- Capital punishment for insulting someone
- Killing scores of totally innocent children and babies
- The LORD is a warrior?
- Numerous examples of capital punishment for silly reasons
- Capital punishment for exercising your human rights
- Be careful with how you pronounce things
- We're intentionally being lied to by your god and we are chosen (from the start)

What happens to you after death isn't a compensation payout for all the bad stuff that happened in life...

Matthew seems to have another idea about it than you do

The non-Christian funerals I've been to have tended to be very emotionally intense.

But then I'd argue that they value that person's life a lot more: after all, one who has only a good 70-80 years to live should be more appreciative of that time than someone who expects to live for more than 1000000000000000 years.

I am curious though: if you are at a funeral of an atheist person, then your guess would be that this person has just begun an eternity or suffering. What do you say in consolation to the family members?

My point was that not all things require complex solutions. There's nothing wrong with simplistic answer to a simplistic problem.

Well, as a technical-minded person, I subscribe to the KISS principe.

The passage you mentioned in Genesis doesn't quite cut it.

I think you're referring to the AC comment. That wasn't mine.

Quote me a passage that says God was surprised and ignorant.

The claim is that sin exists only outside of this entity. My claim is that this entity knew all along that they would eat from this tree. In that story, he certainly does not present a role model for parenting. What if he said "ok, guys.. you did a bad thing.. now you must pay by cleaning all of Eden with a toothbrush, ha ha!" -- the only thing they were told in advance was to obey some silly rule that they could not fully grasp before breaking it.

The very first reaction to sin is trying to pass the blame.

Don't forget that they were told that they would surely die. They were not more guilty than a kid that ate from a cookie jar and lies about it when the parent shouts "I'm

That is the definition of hell.

Perhaps you can give reference to yours and I will give you some of mine :-)

Definately. What aspect of God do you think is immoral?

A small pick in very random order:
- Capital punishment for insulting someone
- Killing scores of totally innocent children and babies
- The LORD is a warrior?
- Numerous examples of capital punishment for silly reasons
- Capital punishment for exercising your human rights
- Be careful with how you pronounce things
- We're intentionally being lied to by your god and we are chosen (from the start)

What happens to you after death isn't a compensation payout for all the bad stuff that happened in life...

Matthew seems to have another idea about it than you do

The non-Christian funerals I've been to have tended to be very emotionally intense.

But then I'd argue that they value that person's life a lot more: after all, one who has only a good 70-80 years to live should be more appreciative of that time than someone who expects to live for more than 1000000000000000 years.

I am curious though: if you are at a funeral of an atheist person, then your guess would be that this person has just begun an eternity or suffering. What do you say in consolation to the family members?

My point was that not all things require complex solutions. There's nothing wrong with simplistic answer to a simplistic problem.

Well, as a technical-minded person, I subscribe to the KISS principe.

The passage you mentioned in Genesis doesn't quite cut it.

I think you're referring to the AC comment. That wasn't mine.

Quote me a passage that says God was surprised and ignorant.

The claim is that sin exists only outside of this entity. My claim is that this entity knew all along that they would eat from this tree. In that story, he certainly does not present a role model for parenting. What if he said "ok, guys.. you did a bad thing.. now you must pay by cleaning all of Eden with a toothbrush, ha ha!" -- the only thing they were told in advance was to obey some silly rule that they could not fully grasp before breaking it.

The very first reaction to sin is trying to pass the blame.

Don't forget that they were told that they would surely die. They were not more guilty than a kid that ate from a cookie jar and lies about it when the parent shouts "I'm

That is the definition of hell.

Perhaps you can give reference to yours and I will give you some of mine :-)

Definately. What aspect of God do you think is immoral?

A small pick in very random order:
- Capital punishment for insulting someone
- Killing scores of totally innocent children and babies
- The LORD is a warrior?
- Numerous examples of capital punishment for silly reasons
- Capital punishment for exercising your human rights
- Be careful with how you pronounce things
- We're intentionally being lied to by your god and we are chosen (from the start)

What happens to you after death isn't a compensation payout for all the bad stuff that happened in life...

Matthew seems to have another idea about it than you do

The non-Christian funerals I've been to have tended to be very emotionally intense.

But then I'd argue that they value that person's life a lot more: after all, one who has only a good 70-80 years to live should be more appreciative of that time than someone who expects to live for more than 1000000000000000 years.

I am curious though: if you are at a funeral of an atheist person, then your guess would be that this person has just begun an eternity or suffering. What do you say in consolation to the family members?

My point was that not all things require complex solutions. There's nothing wrong with simplistic answer to a simplistic problem.

Well, as a technical-minded person, I subscribe to the KISS principe.

The passage you mentioned in Genesis doesn't quite cut it.

I think you're referring to the AC comment. That wasn't mine.

Quote me a passage that says God was surprised and ignorant.

The claim is that sin exists only outside of this entity. My claim is that this entity knew all along that they would eat from this tree. In that story, he certainly does not present a role model for parenting. What if he said "ok, guys.. you did a bad thing.. now you must pay by cleaning all of Eden with a toothbrush, ha ha!" -- the only thing they were told in advance was to obey some silly rule that they could not fully grasp before breaking it.

The very first reaction to sin is trying to pass the blame.

Don't forget that they were told that they would surely die. They were not more guilty than a kid that ate from a cookie jar and lies about it when the parent shouts "I'm

That is the definition of hell.

Perhaps you can give reference to yours and I will give you some of mine :-)

Definately. What aspect of God do you think is immoral?

A small pick in very random order:
- Capital punishment for insulting someone
- Killing scores of totally innocent children and babies
- The LORD is a warrior?
- Numerous examples of capital punishment for silly reasons
- Capital punishment for exercising your human rights
- Be careful with how you pronounce things
- We're intentionally being lied to by your god and we are chosen (from the start)

What happens to you after death isn't a compensation payout for all the bad stuff that happened in life...

Matthew seems to have another idea about it than you do

The non-Christian funerals I've been to have tended to be very emotionally intense.

But then I'd argue that they value that person's life a lot more: after all, one who has only a good 70-80 years to live should be more appreciative of that time than someone who expects to live for more than 1000000000000000 years.

I am curious though: if you are at a funeral of an atheist person, then your guess would be that this person has just begun an eternity or suffering. What do you say in consolation to the family members?

My point was that not all things require complex solutions. There's nothing wrong with simplistic answer to a simplistic problem.

Well, as a technical-minded person, I subscribe to the KISS principe.

The passage you mentioned in Genesis doesn't quite cut it.

I think you're referring to the AC comment. That wasn't mine.

Quote me a passage that says God was surprised and ignorant.

The claim is that sin exists only outside of this entity. My claim is that this entity knew all along that they would eat from this tree. In that story, he certainly does not present a role model for parenting. What if he said "ok, guys.. you did a bad thing.. now you must pay by cleaning all of Eden with a toothbrush, ha ha!" -- the only thing they were told in advance was to obey some silly rule that they could not fully grasp before breaking it.

The very first reaction to sin is trying to pass the blame.

Don't forget that they were told that they would surely die. They were not more guilty than a kid that ate from a cookie jar and lies about it when the parent shouts "I'm

That is the definition of hell.

Perhaps you can give reference to yours and I will give you some of mine :-)

Definately. What aspect of God do you think is immoral?

A small pick in very random order:
- Capital punishment for insulting someone
- Killing scores of totally innocent children and babies
- The LORD is a warrior?
- Numerous examples of capital punishment for silly reasons
- Capital punishment for exercising your human rights
- Be careful with how you pronounce things
- We're intentionally being lied to by your god and we are chosen (from the start)

What happens to you after death isn't a compensation payout for all the bad stuff that happened in life...

Matthew seems to have another idea about it than you do

The non-Christian funerals I've been to have tended to be very emotionally intense.

But then I'd argue that they value that person's life a lot more: after all, one who has only a good 70-80 years to live should be more appreciative of that time than someone who expects to live for more than 1000000000000000 years.

I am curious though: if you are at a funeral of an atheist person, then your guess would be that this person has just begun an eternity or suffering. What do you say in consolation to the family members?

My point was that not all things require complex solutions. There's nothing wrong with simplistic answer to a simplistic problem.

Well, as a technical-minded person, I subscribe to the KISS principe.

The passage you mentioned in Genesis doesn't quite cut it.

I think you're referring to the AC comment. That wasn't mine.

Quote me a passage that says God was surprised and ignorant.

The claim is that sin exists only outside of this entity. My claim is that this entity knew all along that they would eat from this tree. In that story, he certainly does not present a role model for parenting. What if he said "ok, guys.. you did a bad thing.. now you must pay by cleaning all of Eden with a toothbrush, ha ha!" -- the only thing they were told in advance was to obey some silly rule that they could not fully grasp before breaking it.

The very first reaction to sin is trying to pass the blame.

Don't forget that they were told that they would surely die. They were not more guilty than a kid that ate from a cookie jar and lies about it when the parent shouts "I'm

That is the definition of hell.

Perhaps you can give reference to yours and I will give you some of mine :-)

Definately. What aspect of God do you think is immoral?

A small pick in very random order:
- Capital punishment for insulting someone
- Killing scores of totally innocent children and babies
- The LORD is a warrior?
- Numerous examples of capital punishment for silly reasons
- Capital punishment for exercising your human rights
- Be careful with how you pronounce things
- We're intentionally being lied to by your god and we are chosen (from the start)

What happens to you after death isn't a compensation payout for all the bad stuff that happened in life...

Matthew seems to have another idea about it than you do

The non-Christian funerals I've been to have tended to be very emotionally intense.

But then I'd argue that they value that person's life a lot more: after all, one who has only a good 70-80 years to live should be more appreciative of that time than someone who expects to live for more than 1000000000000000 years.

I am curious though: if you are at a funeral of an atheist person, then your guess would be that this person has just begun an eternity or suffering. What do you say in consolation to the family members?

My point was that not all things require complex solutions. There's nothing wrong with simplistic answer to a simplistic problem.

Well, as a technical-minded person, I subscribe to the KISS principe.

The passage you mentioned in Genesis doesn't quite cut it.

I think you're referring to the AC comment. That wasn't mine.

Quote me a passage that says God was surprised and ignorant.

The claim is that sin exists only outside of this entity. My claim is that this entity knew all along that they would eat from this tree. In that story, he certainly does not present a role model for parenting. What if he said "ok, guys.. you did a bad thing.. now you must pay by cleaning all of Eden with a toothbrush, ha ha!" -- the only thing they were told in advance was to obey some silly rule that they could not fully grasp before breaking it.

The very first reaction to sin is trying to pass the blame.

Don't forget that they were told that they would surely die. They were not more guilty than a kid that ate from a cookie jar and lies about it when the parent shouts "I'm

That is the definition of hell.

Perhaps you can give reference to yours and I will give you some of mine :-)

Definately. What aspect of God do you think is immoral?

A small pick in very random order:
- Capital punishment for insulting someone
- Killing scores of totally innocent children and babies
- The LORD is a warrior?
- Numerous examples of capital punishment for silly reasons
- Capital punishment for exercising your human rights
- Be careful with how you pronounce things
- We're intentionally being lied to by your god and we are chosen (from the start)

What happens to you after death isn't a compensation payout for all the bad stuff that happened in life...

Matthew seems to have another idea about it than you do

The non-Christian funerals I've been to have tended to be very emotionally intense.

But then I'd argue that they value that person's life a lot more: after all, one who has only a good 70-80 years to live should be more appreciative of that time than someone who expects to live for more than 1000000000000000 years.

I am curious though: if you are at a funeral of an atheist person, then your guess would be that this person has just begun an eternity or suffering. What do you say in consolation to the family members?

My point was that not all things require complex solutions. There's nothing wrong with simplistic answer to a simplistic problem.

Well, as a technical-minded person, I subscribe to the KISS principe.

The passage you mentioned in Genesis doesn't quite cut it.

I think you're referring to the AC comment. That wasn't mine.

Quote me a passage that says God was surprised and ignorant.

The claim is that sin exists only outside of this entity. My claim is that this entity knew all along that they would eat from this tree. In that story, he certainly does not present a role model for parenting. What if he said "ok, guys.. you did a bad thing.. now you must pay by cleaning all of Eden with a toothbrush, ha ha!" -- the only thing they were told in advance was to obey some silly rule that they could not fully grasp before breaking it.

The very first reaction to sin is trying to pass the blame.

Don't forget that they were told that they would surely die. They were not more guilty than a kid that ate from a cookie jar and lies about it when the parent shouts "I'm

He loves the Israelites more than he loves the Egyptians.

And in this world given the conflict[1] of free wills (we are made in the image of God), innocent people sometimes have to die. Similarly Jesus, God's real first born (and God) died, though innocent.

I admit I have difficulty reconciling popular interpretations of the "Jesus is the only way" concept, with a loving, all powerful God. If they are correct, billions are going to hell. Is there really no other way? Does the choice end at death?

[1] Then Pharaoh gave this order to all his people: "Every boy that is born you must throw into the Nile, but let every girl live."

The Skeptic's Annotated bible is written by people who can read but either have very little understanding of what they read or are so severely biased that they're a joke themselves.

e.g. the two sisters -

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ezek/23.html

Ezekiel 23 (NIV)

Given the mention in verse 3 that the sisters Oholah= Samaria and Oholibah=Jerusalem, it's frigging obvious that it's about Samaria and Israel and how they were behaving - defiantly unfaithful to God (who they had a covenant with ).

The Israelites were to keep themselves separate from the other nations, and not to behave like them, and yet they did not.

And the Skeptic's Annotated Bible categorizes it under "Insults to Women in the Bible".

Doh.

I actually don't mind most of the atheists with brains. But so many atheists are actually fanatical to the point of stupidity, just like the religious people they like making fun of.

"thus, it simply means that you must be "for the beast" to "buy or sell""

Well I interpret it as if the Beast or his minions figures out that you're not on his side, your certificate gets put on the certificate revocation list, and within a month (or whatever period everyone does their update) your cert is no good for anything - buying, selling, travelling.

When your cert hits its expiry period and you want your certificate renewed - bow down and worship him or the equivalent.

All the tech is there actually. No need for to think its all symbolic.

Unfortunately the part about the mountain that got tossed into the sea doesn't sound too symbolic either, probably a frigging asteroid or something. If that happens I won't be surprised about the part about a "third of the seas" etc.

Sorry to go quiet for a while, it was a busy weekend and I was sick on Monday.

While the last hundred years were pretty horrible, I think if we go back a thousand years or so we might conclude that the Europeans (most notably the Vikings and the Christians) were really a savage bunch. Then there's Ghengis Kahn, etc. But in relation to the whole planet, there most likely hasn't been any real change. The savagery just moved off shore (from Europe and the U.S. anyway)

It is very difficult to make generalisations on the period of Ghengis Khan and the like, because we don't know a whole lot about them. I think you are right though.

There was also a large group of natives on a Carribean island that, when facing the conquistadors, chose mass suicide over slavery. In truth, that's the way it should be done.

I'm not sure I totally agree with that, but I think that depends on your view of suicide. I think a better example would be a person who chose to starve rather than the steal food frrom someone else (which would have resulted in them starving).

Killing another person truly bad, no matter what. In reality, we are survival whores that will do anything to stay alive. I'm not how I would act when facing a situation like this, but I know I should just let it go and not try to cling to life.

You make a very interesting point. I think you have are right there. I remember reading some personal reflections on people going to war. Before they started fighting, some were mentally resigned to die, however once there was the chance of dying they were frightened of dying. It is like there is a real hunger and drive to survive. Why didn't prisoners in concentration camps just give up? They can't have had much hope of survival, and yet they did not (well not all) give in.

Don't hold out on me, man! My liking or accepting it is irrelevent.

My reason for believing this is because I am a Christian. I believe that humans were created perfect, but as a result of them doing what God told them not them to do, every part of the world we live in and ourselves has become damaged. As I said I'm not sure that you will agree with that. But what is interesting to me, is that what I believe is confirmed by the world I see around me. The word that springs to mind for me is flawed: the world we live in shows what it was created to be, but it is also damaged irrevocably. A flawed diamond. As people we show that flawed nature and we are broken to such and extent that we cann't fix ourselves. We need outside help.

I'm really holding out for some evidence that physical existance is not entirely evil and that death is not so absolute as to make life entirely meaningless.

Well from my perspecive that is a littla easier to answer. If you take what I said above, then physical life is not absolutely evil. Neither is death absolute and life is not a meaningless struggle that we cannot win, because we cannot change ourselves. God has interevened by sending Jesus so save us (and indeed the world) from this cycle.

I'm not sure where you stand on all this, I'd hazard a guess that my answer might surprise/disappoint you. That said, I have greatly enjoyed chatting, it has been an interesting and enlighening experience.

I'm not sure if you are interested in looking into this any further. If you are, can I suggest having a go at reading Ecclesiates, one of the books of the bible. The reason I suggest Ecclesiates is that it really charts one man's quest for meaning in life. It isn't what most people would consider Christian, indeed there was some debate on whether it should be part of the bible at all. From any perspective it is an interesting read.

"What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?
Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever."

Link

I am an atheist

Well, that interests me... but I'm completely confused.

That is a perversion of the religion since nowhere iit[sic] is demanded to gain access to Paradise.

I disagree with you

virtues of their religion (as perceived by [them]) would never force or encourage conversion

This seems to be a "eye of the beholder" argument. You seem to be claiming that people who interpret the religion on their own would never do certain things. How do you know what anyone makes as a personal decision as to their interpretation of something?

I am an atheist

Well, that interests me... but I'm completely confused.

That is a perversion of the religion since nowhere iit[sic] is demanded to gain access to Paradise.

I disagree with you

virtues of their religion (as perceived by [them]) would never force or encourage conversion

This seems to be a "eye of the beholder" argument. You seem to be claiming that people who interpret the religion on their own would never do certain things. How do you know what anyone makes as a personal decision as to their interpretation of something?

I am an atheist

Well, that interests me... but I'm completely confused.

That is a perversion of the religion since nowhere iit[sic] is demanded to gain access to Paradise.

I disagree with you

virtues of their religion (as perceived by [them]) would never force or encourage conversion

This seems to be a "eye of the beholder" argument. You seem to be claiming that people who interpret the religion on their own would never do certain things. How do you know what anyone makes as a personal decision as to their interpretation of something?

Yeah, killing livestock and infants is the way I like to carry out my justice, too.

Yeah, killing livestock and infants is the way I like to carry out my justice, too.

actually, that would have been Plan A. I would suggest learning about the subject before being critical. You could check out Alpha.

Any profession has a basic problem that, at some point, it becomes a job. The bigger question is how to keep it in balance. I'd encourage you to develop hobbies that are not related to computers; I took up woodworking and woodturning. You're married (and presumably not all that long), so it's worth thinking of cultivating your marriage and spending time with your children (once you have any, if you don't have any yet). Working for charitable causes is helpful also, especially in that it helps you see the value of your own career. (There's always someone worse off than you are.)

That having been said, some jobs simply are not conducive to this. Bad hours, bad boss, tedious work, etc. I stand by my oft-stated assertion that working with a good team of people (defined as coworkers you enjoy working with) is worth a LOT of money. In that case, look around for a position that's better for your soul. But even then, it'll become work some day.

In any case, there is a bigger picture to be kept in mind. I cannot speak for other faiths, but from my vantage point as a Christian, there is a lot to be said for developing an understanding of vocation. Your abilities are not purely of your own doing. What you have been given (money, ability, etc.) should be used for a greater purpose, as the parable of the ten talents (Matthew 25:14-29) shows. When viewed with this attitude, it's easy to see the "job" as the grunt work that provides for the real, but unpaid, task of giving time, money, or ability elsewhere. Speaking from experience, the stress becomes bearable as you realize that you tolerate it for a reason.

Boy, I sure hope this year's is better. I had a big booth for my game, "Win the Wicked," (selling for $49.99) and last year some weird Jewish guy with a whip came through the hall yelling and overturning tables everywhere. Something about his father's temple. WTF? Guy was on speed or something. Probably cost the developers at the conference a thousands of dollars each. The damage he caused to my equipment was why I had to push back the game a few months. Who did he think he was anyway, stopping me from selling my Christian games? This is America, a Christian country!

I hear they got an injunction against him this year though. For all the trouble he caused me, he could be rotting in a grave for all I care.

Actually since Christians believe in life after death, it doesn't make sense to say that only "interactions in the 'real' life" are valid.

Jesus said plenty about the thoughts being as significant as the deed. Look at a woman lustfully = committing adultery with her in your heart. Be angry with your brother = subject to judgement.

See: Matthew Chapter 5

In fact what Jesus talks about has become even more applicable as time goes on - technology exists to allow people to have virtual sex with each other without physical contact. Errant husbands can't say it isn't adultery coz it's not "real" by Jesus's terms.

With the brain chips they've tested on monkeys and are testing on the paralyzed, soon people may even be able to kill others without even moving a finger - just thinking about it would be enough. Previously you had to speak or press a key or click on a mouse.

I appreciate the page you refered to. Here is a page that gives evidence to the authenticity of the bible. Read it if you like.

Thank you for this link. I have begun reading the site and may respond at some point with specific comments/questions.

The Gospels were written 30 years after the death of Jesus. At that time, 30 years was like a news flash! The 2 earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander's death, yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy.

I think you're missing the point, which is that just because someone wrote something doesn't make it true. Whether or not what we today call the bible is an accurate reflection of the original is only one of the problems. Just because you have an original copy of the Wizard of Oz doesn't mean that the story within is fact, even if archaeologists could use it to find Kansas.

Now you are trying to confuse 2 points. Your first statement said that just because Jesus died for us doesn't give any weight due to cult deaths. Jesus was considered a great man AND died for our sins.

I was responding to the idea that just because it's written somewhere that some people considered jesus to be a good man means that the story is true. It doesn't. The other part responded to the idea that jesus must have been right because he risked death. Various cults have risked (and found) death; it doesn't make them right. Neither idea is sufficient in itself to mean truth and the two ideas together also fail to prove truth.

God wasn't referring to physical death. God was referring to spiritual death. "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Eating from the tree of knowledge disobeyed God's order which was a sin. Thus we must pay for our sin by being separated from God.

I've heard this claim made before, many times. Unfortunately the bible verses do not support this interpretation; it's just something that christians claim in the face of obvious error/dishonesty on the part of their god. Romans 6 is a letter from Paul; unlike Genesis, it does not purport to be the word of god directly.

God is all-powerful. But he gave us free will. He loves us very much and he wants us to choose him. But He doesn't want us to be forced to love Him. Would you want your wife to be forced to love you, or would you rather she "choose" to love you. God has paid for our sins.... we just have to choose to accept his forgiveness through Jesus

Ah, free will. This is the common explanation for why bad things happen. Unfortunately it ignores god's all-knowing, all-powerful nature. Would I want my wife to choose to love me? Yes. Would I punish a woman for not loving me? Of course not. Would I punish a woman for not loving me when I specifically created her in a way such that I knew (all-knowing, remember) would cause her to choose not to love me? Hell no! Free will doesn't excuse god from the essential mindless injustice of punishing people for doing something that he knew (all-knowing) they'd do and which he specifically designed them to do (all-powerful). The problem here stems from the wide variance between old testament god and new testament god. Old testament god shows signs of not being all knowing or all powerful. It was in the new testament that jesus started making all the claims or omniscience and omnipotence.

The other side of this is the idea that jesus had to die for god to forgive us (for

I appreciate the page you refered to. Here is a page that gives evidence to the authenticity of the bible. Read it if you like.

Thank you for this link. I have begun reading the site and may respond at some point with specific comments/questions.

The Gospels were written 30 years after the death of Jesus. At that time, 30 years was like a news flash! The 2 earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander's death, yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy.

I think you're missing the point, which is that just because someone wrote something doesn't make it true. Whether or not what we today call the bible is an accurate reflection of the original is only one of the problems. Just because you have an original copy of the Wizard of Oz doesn't mean that the story within is fact, even if archaeologists could use it to find Kansas.

Now you are trying to confuse 2 points. Your first statement said that just because Jesus died for us doesn't give any weight due to cult deaths. Jesus was considered a great man AND died for our sins.

I was responding to the idea that just because it's written somewhere that some people considered jesus to be a good man means that the story is true. It doesn't. The other part responded to the idea that jesus must have been right because he risked death. Various cults have risked (and found) death; it doesn't make them right. Neither idea is sufficient in itself to mean truth and the two ideas together also fail to prove truth.

God wasn't referring to physical death. God was referring to spiritual death. "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Eating from the tree of knowledge disobeyed God's order which was a sin. Thus we must pay for our sin by being separated from God.

I've heard this claim made before, many times. Unfortunately the bible verses do not support this interpretation; it's just something that christians claim in the face of obvious error/dishonesty on the part of their god. Romans 6 is a letter from Paul; unlike Genesis, it does not purport to be the word of god directly.

God is all-powerful. But he gave us free will. He loves us very much and he wants us to choose him. But He doesn't want us to be forced to love Him. Would you want your wife to be forced to love you, or would you rather she "choose" to love you. God has paid for our sins.... we just have to choose to accept his forgiveness through Jesus

Ah, free will. This is the common explanation for why bad things happen. Unfortunately it ignores god's all-knowing, all-powerful nature. Would I want my wife to choose to love me? Yes. Would I punish a woman for not loving me? Of course not. Would I punish a woman for not loving me when I specifically created her in a way such that I knew (all-knowing, remember) would cause her to choose not to love me? Hell no! Free will doesn't excuse god from the essential mindless injustice of punishing people for doing something that he knew (all-knowing) they'd do and which he specifically designed them to do (all-powerful). The problem here stems from the wide variance between old testament god and new testament god. Old testament god shows signs of not being all knowing or all powerful. It was in the new testament that jesus started making all the claims or omniscience and omnipotence.

The other side of this is the idea that jesus had to die for god to forgive us (for

I appreciate the page you refered to. Here is a page that gives evidence to the authenticity of the bible. Read it if you like.

Thank you for this link. I have begun reading the site and may respond at some point with specific comments/questions.

The Gospels were written 30 years after the death of Jesus. At that time, 30 years was like a news flash! The 2 earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander's death, yet historians consider them to be generally trustworthy.

I think you're missing the point, which is that just because someone wrote something doesn't make it true. Whether or not what we today call the bible is an accurate reflection of the original is only one of the problems. Just because you have an original copy of the Wizard of Oz doesn't mean that the story within is fact, even if archaeologists could use it to find Kansas.

Now you are trying to confuse 2 points. Your first statement said that just because Jesus died for us doesn't give any weight due to cult deaths. Jesus was considered a great man AND died for our sins.

I was responding to the idea that just because it's written somewhere that some people considered jesus to be a good man means that the story is true. It doesn't. The other part responded to the idea that jesus must have been right because he risked death. Various cults have risked (and found) death; it doesn't make them right. Neither idea is sufficient in itself to mean truth and the two ideas together also fail to prove truth.

God wasn't referring to physical death. God was referring to spiritual death. "For the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Eating from the tree of knowledge disobeyed God's order which was a sin. Thus we must pay for our sin by being separated from God.

I've heard this claim made before, many times. Unfortunately the bible verses do not support this interpretation; it's just something that christians claim in the face of obvious error/dishonesty on the part of their god. Romans 6 is a letter from Paul; unlike Genesis, it does not purport to be the word of god directly.

God is all-powerful. But he gave us free will. He loves us very much and he wants us to choose him. But He doesn't want us to be forced to love Him. Would you want your wife to be forced to love you, or would you rather she "choose" to love you. God has paid for our sins.... we just have to choose to accept his forgiveness through Jesus

Ah, free will. This is the common explanation for why bad things happen. Unfortunately it ignores god's all-knowing, all-powerful nature. Would I want my wife to choose to love me? Yes. Would I punish a woman for not loving me? Of course not. Would I punish a woman for not loving me when I specifically created her in a way such that I knew (all-knowing, remember) would cause her to choose not to love me? Hell no! Free will doesn't excuse god from the essential mindless injustice of punishing people for doing something that he knew (all-knowing) they'd do and which he specifically designed them to do (all-powerful). The problem here stems from the wide variance between old testament god and new testament god. Old testament god shows signs of not being all knowing or all powerful. It was in the new testament that jesus started making all the claims or omniscience and omnipotence.

The other side of this is the idea that jesus had to die for god to forgive us (for

Yes, nakedness was wrong AFTER she ate from the tree. The tree only made her realize that she was naked and she was ashamed. Why would God create Adam and Eve naked if it was wrong?

That's a very good question, since the scriptures don't support your belief that eating from the tree changed the definition of right and wrong. And why would they? The idea is ridiculous.

Only Satan makes the wrongs of the world.

Consider actually reading the bible, particularly Isaiah 45.

The tree was of the knowledge of good and evil, allowing both of them to discern the difference between the two. But even Eve said that if she ate from the tree she would surely die - how could she NOT know that it was wrong to eat from the tree?

You're confusing dangerous and wrong. Just because something will kill you doesn't make it wrong. Incidentally, despite god's claim that eating from the tree would kill them that day the reality turned out to be quite different. When god bluffs, he bluffs big.

Why would God give them a choice to sin if they weren't able to discern the difference between right and wrong?

Good question. You begin to approach an understanding of why the christian mythology does not make sense and why most people don't believe it.

And *I* go by heretical, anti-Christian doctrine?

I've supplied bible verses to support my arguments. You have not. Why do you think your mere opinion on the subject outweighs what you claim is the word of god? Is that not heresy? Is that not anti-christian?