Out of curiosity - what's with the formal wear? It's 38degC (~100F) in the shade at the moment and two of your brethren knocked on my door about an hour ago dressed in suits.
Can you really not think of any reason? One is that the average person is more likely to listen to two clean-cut guys dressed in suits than to two grubby-looking guys dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, even if both sets of guys intend to discuss the same subject.
The answer to your question is answered in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"
Bicameralism is an attempt to explain why ancient peoples believed a God actually spoke to them by calling it a hallucination, using the physiology of the brain as a basis for the idea.
Another possibility is that a God actually did speak to them.
Also, why there haven't been any not-considered-insane prophets for about 2000 years, and very likely none in the future.
2) Even in the Bible, prophets were often considered insane by those they tried to teach. The fact that X million people think Joe is insane does not by itself mean Joe could not actually be a prophet;) Even Jesus was rejected by his own people in Nazareth.
Also, why people actually used to get replies to their prayers. Real, as far as they were concerned, answers, not a "feeling as if".
I have gotten direct, non-"vague feeling" answers to prayers. Don't pretend your personal experience - or the personal experiences of some others - must be universal, and don't pretend "I can't prove it empirically" is equivalent to "it cannot exist".
In other words, there is no point in praying to find out if an omnipresent being exists if the precondition to praying actually being a form of communication is that such an omnipresent being exists. Circular logic, again.
Praying to ask God if he exists does not already require that you believe in God - it merely requires that you be willing to believe he exists should he answer.
God is responsible for all the suffering and death on earth today, since--being omnipotent--he has the means to prevent it.
Ah, this old horse again.
Any parent knows that the best way to raise children involves allowing the possibility they'll hurt themselves. For example, my daughter was recently learning how to sit down from standing. (She's 9 months old.) She had to fall a few times before she figured out how to do it right. If we sat her down ourselves every single time we saw her about to try, do you really think she'd learn how to do it herself?
This is true on a biological level, too. If you keep your children in a perfectly sterile environment for their entire childhood, their immune systems will not be able to handle going out into the real world where everyone has germs. Letting them get sick sometimes when they're young helps them be stronger later on.
God is doing exactly the same thing. He's letting us learn by allowing our actions to have consequences.
In fact, one cannot learn how to behave if there are no consequences to one's actions!
This all comes back to free will. You are saying, if God existed, he would take away our free will, because we use it to hurt each other. It's a flawed premise. You're shifting the blame from the people who cause suffering onto God. You're saying, if God exists, it's not Joe Murderer's fault, it's God's fault for not stopping Joe. You're saying if God exists, then nothing we do is our fault.
Put more precisely, you're saying free will can only exist if God does not exist. It's ridiculous.
Not at all: many forms of immoral conduct are legal, and many forms of illegal conduct cannot realistically be punished. Therefore, people can make moral choices in their lives.
You're ignoring my point - by your logic, government does remove the capacity for at least some moral decisions.
Would you agree that you, personally, cannot choose to kill merely because it's the right thing to do, because the government will imprison you if you do it?
Are you telling me that your decision to not kill your neighbor is purely utilitarian?
Because you're telling me that my decision to not kill my neighbor is purely utilitarian.
Your premise is, "the promise of a reward or punishment for a particular action or set of actions makes all related decisions purely utilitarian in nature. Such decisions cannot, after such a promise, be based on morality."
Therefore, since the government threatens imprisonment or sometimes death against anyone who murders, by your own logic nobody under that government can possibly choose not to kill simply because it's immoral - it must be a utilitarian decision.
No, they aren't. This is the circular reasoning I was talking about. So I don't believe in any gods. The answer is to ask a god? Asking someone requires the presupposition that this someone exists.
Let's say I tell you about this friend I have, named Steve. I tell you such strange things about him that you decide he must not actually exist - you decide he must be my imaginary friend, and you tell me so.
So I give you Steve's phone number and tell you to call him.
Are you going to throw the phone number away, and continue insisting Steve is imaginary?
The only difference here is the method of communication.
This is the first time that you have admitted to being a member of LDS.
Sorry, I've mentioned it in other branches of the thread more than once, and since you've been the most active participant I guess I assumed I must have mentioned it to you at least once.
And whether Mormon theology and morality is superior to Catholic theology and morality really doesn't matter to me since both religions are false and fraudulent.
You can say Mormonism is false and fraudulent only if you know what it teaches and can show falsehood or fraud;) "It claims to be Christian" does not by itself make the church fraudulent or false.
Of course, if you think all religions are fraudulent and false, that changes things a little, but it's no less silly - you still must know what something teaches before you can say it is "fraudulent" or "false".
Unless you know what something teaches you cannot truthfully claim it is incorrect. This is as true of religion as it is of a proposed scientific theory or a book of history.
It's misleading for you to pretend to represent their theology or beliefs.
I don't claim to represent the beliefs of most churches who nowadays call themselves Christian. I claim to represent the beliefs of those who called themselves Christian two thousand years ago.
I quite agree - so it's interesting to note that even the Bible mentions the need for ongoing revelation by stating that we would need apostles and prophets "until we all come to a unity in the faith".
Throughout the Bible, God gives people commandments specific to their time and place. Why should it be any different now? If God would send prophets thousands of years ago, it only makes sense that he would continue to do so now, when there are so many new issues to deal with.
Normally a conviction like that stays on the books for X number of years and then is automatically discarded.
Juvenile records in the United States are not automatically expunged or sealed. You have to submit some paperwork and appear before a judge, and not all crimes qualify.
Would that suffice? Then I'll invest the two minutes with Google to find the actual quotes.
No, because that doesn't actually address my question. I didn't ask about minor textual discrepancies; I've argued endlessly with people trying to show them that the Bible, as we have it today, cannot be word-for-word the literal word of God, for many reasons, including textual discrepancies.
Rather, my question was one of doctrinal discrepancy. For example, It would be inconsistent to believe that a) God is just, and b) God condemns people who never had the opportunity to accept the gospel to an eternity of torment and suffering. (The Catholic Church falls victim to this logical inconsistency, for example.)
This is a little higher-level than textual analysis; rather, it would be an analysis of what a particular church actually teaches (so long as that church's teachings aren't contradicted by its own books of scripture).
(For the record, my church in particular believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. The fact that so many versions of the Bible exist - many of which contradict each other - merely serves to prove that the Bible is not translated correctly.)
If you can not disprove something, how are you ever going to know that it isn't totally made-up bullshit?
By proving (not disproving) it for yourself:)
The scriptures are actually pretty clear:
If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.
We can ask for wisdom, and if we ask truly believing we'll receive, we will.
But more than that, we're encouraged to test God's promises (see Malachi 3, for example).
And even more than that, we're told that we should look for prophets sent by God to teach us - though we should be wary of false prophets. (One solution is to ask God if Jim is a prophet, given the earlier statement about prayer being available as an method for obtaining truth. You could also judge them for what they do: "By their fruits ye shall know them", as Jesus stated.)
I personally much prefer those, because it leaves you the room to say "that may have been true 2000 years ago, but the world has changed"
I personally believe religion can account for that as well;) (Mine does, for example, and so did the New Testament, when compared to Old Testament times.)
That means nothing less than that if it were not for religion, you would engage in those acts.
Yes - but it does not mean I would devote every waking moment to those acts. Let me quote you:
you told us that if it weren't for your religion, you'd be a slut, you'd cheat on your wife, you'd be addicted to pornography, and you'd curse like a sailor.
Which is not at all what I said. You took my comment - that I would engage to some degree in these activities were I not religious - to a ridiculous extreme: that I would indulge in these activities like there's no tomorrow.
So in fact you did extrapolate to a ridiculous extreme.
God cannot be the source of absolute morality because God himself has frequently behaved immorally; the Bible gives numerous examples of that.
I don't think so. I'm willing to look at examples.
I believe that God cannot behave immorally - if he did, he would cease to be God.
your belief in God means that you have lost the capacity to make moral choices altogether; while you may still "do the right thing", your belief system means that your choice to do so is not a moral choice anymore, it is merely a utilitarian choice.
By your logic, anyone living under any form of government - even a small one like a family - cannot make moral choices; while they may still "do the right thing", their desire to avoid the government's punishments means their choices are not moral, but merely utilitarian.
In other words, by your logic, the only way one could truly make "moral" choices is by living somewhere without any human contact at all, in order to remove the possibility of others imposing consequences on your actions!
External influence does not negate whether I can actually choose to do something for morality's sake.
To make my point even clearer: let's say I come to your house heavily armed and say "if you ever kill your neighbor, I will shoot you in the face."
Does that mean you're suddenly allowing your neighbor to live for a utilitarian reason, instead of the "it's morally wrong to kill" reason you had before?
You don't seem to have a firm theology at all, but, then, I've already concluded that you're not a Christian anyway.
On the contrary, I have a very concise and clear theology, you're just entirely unfamiliar with the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I'm also insulted that you still say I'm not Christian; if believing Christ is the only path to salvation does not make me Christian, then nobody is Christian.
You know nothing of science, do you? Relativity completely replaces newtonian physics, and no scientist I know or ever read claims otherwise.
Ok, you apparently missed my point. Your claims demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the things you're claiming are inconsistent, just as my hypothetical claims about science did.
It's easy to say $FOO is inconsistent if you don't understand it in the first place.
tell me which evidence would convince you that your religion has been disproven.
Since you can't prove non-existence of God, you're left with finding logical errors or self-consistency problems in my church's doctrine. Find some which cannot be explained in any way other than inconsistency, and I'll be convinced.
I won't hold my breath.
Where can I find authoritative answers which parts are superseded, and how?
The Bible itself provides two answers:
1) Pray and ask God yourself. 2) Prophets who receive revelation directly from God.
Since most of the modern Christian world doesn't believe in prophets anymore (even though the Bible says there must be), and most of them don't believe even in personal revelation through prayer, it's obvious why there are so many doctrinal problems.
I, on the other hand, believe there are still prophets, and that God answers prayers.
And if you claim that religion is not a tool designed to control people's behaviour, then pray, tell what it is for.
I don't disagree that religion is meant to modify peoples' behavior.
I'll merely assert that, if Christ exists as advertised, then he's well within his rights to control our behavior through religion;)
But christianity isn't taught by the new testament alone. It's taught by both books
Perhaps I should clarify. The behavioral doctrines taught by the New Testament supercede those taught by the Old Testament, e.g. "an eye for an eye" was replaced by "turn the other cheek", "don't commit adultery" was replaced by "don't even *think* about adultery", and so on.
That's what I was referring to.
most of history it followed the old one much more closely than the new one.
The Catholic Church never did follow the New Testament very well.
Christianity is inherently immoral because of its theology.
For the umpteenth time, WHAT MAKES CHRISTIANITY'S THEOLOGY IMMORAL? I have repeatedly asked you this, and all you do is talk about misbehaving popes.
If you want to show me that Christian theology is immoral, you must show me examples of New Testament teachings which are immoral. How many times do I have to ask you for these examples before you give even one?
if even the Pope cannot refrain from murder--and justifying it in the name of Christianity--
So you're telling me that in order for Christianity to be moral, every single one of its members must obey its precepts perfectly, without fail? Or even just that its leaders must obey its precepts perfectly?
That's ludicrous. It's unrealistic to expect someone to be perfect in this life. We are inherently imperfect beings.
I do not disagree that the Catholic Church has twisted Christianity (as taught by the Bible) into something hypocritical, but the original Christianity taught by the Bible does not have that problem.
Christianity evidently also fails even as a practical means of achieving good behavior.
Any plan for self-improvement fails if you don't follow it. Don't blame the instructions, blame the person failing to follow them.
Your complaint seems to be "Christianity can't be valid, simply because so many people fail to follow its directions." That's a whopper of a logical fallacy.
Catholics would vehemently disagree with you that their teachings are contradicted by the Bible.
Sure they would. That wasn't my point. In any case, I can quote their own history books to show them they're wrong.
See, any true religion will be internally consistent - none of its doctrines will contradict any of its other doctrines.
I am fully willing to have my church's doctrines examined in that light. I am willing to stake my reputation on my religion's doctrines being internally self-consistent.
It has been my observation that Catholic doctrines are quite far from self-consistent - even a cursory reading of their histories is enough to see it. I am quite willing to provide examples if you wish.
According to Christianity, Christ was God's final revelation; there are and will be no further revelations or prophets.
Here you go again with "Christianity".
The Bible does not contain those claims, and until it does, you can't tell me Christianity makes those claims.
All you can say is that Catholics makes those claims (or Lutherans, or Protestants, or...)
Do you see my point?
Yes, those groups all call themselves Christian, and yes, those groups make up the majority of the world's Christian population - but they do not represent Christianity in the sense that Christianity was taught in the Bible.
You're trying to tell me Christianity in inherently immoral, but you refuse to let me talk about Christianity as taught by the Bible.
I fully agree that churches which twist their religion into something hypocritical are immoral.
I fully agree that churches which use their influence for gain or oppression are immoral.
But you cannot tell me that Christianity is inherently immoral by pointing to churches which clearly do not practice the things they claim to believe! All you're showing is "hypocrisy is immoral", a statement with which I have never disagreed.
If you want me to believe Christianity itself is immoral, you must refer to teachings in the scriptures which are immoral. Pointing to popes is irrelevant, because even Catholics will tell you that there is no revelation after the Bible, and therefore if a Pope says something immoral, it cannot be doctrine, by their own admission.
Your religion may be Christ-based, but it is evidently not Christian.
"Christian" does not mean "Agrees with everyone else who calls themselves Christian". "Christian" means "worships Christ as the Savior of mankind, and tries to obey him as such". It's ridiculous to say I'm not Christian, because Christ is quite literally the central focus of my religion in every way.
Neither Mormons nor Catholics do that, so clearly they are not even living by the golden rule themselves.
I'm sorry if some people have treated you with disrespect, but don't blame that on the religion - because the religion tells them they should.
(I should note that "treating you with respect" does not include "agreeing with you" or "letting your beliefs take precedence over theirs".)
Based on your statements above, apparently I was wrong: you told us that if it weren't for your religion, you'd be a slut, you'd cheat on your wife, you'd be addicted to pornography, and you'd curse like a sailor.
Good job extrapolating to the extreme. All I said was that I would most probably do those things to some degree, because right now I refrain from them for religious reasons.
That does not in any way mean I would dedicate every waking moment to sex were I not religious.
Take it from me, many other people don't need God or the Bible to tell them that killing, stealing, or cheating on their wife is wrong. I pity anybody who needs religion to figure that out.
Allow me to point out that if there is no religion - or rather, if there is no God - then there's no such thing as "morally correct" in an absolute sense.
If there's no higher power, then all morals are arbitrary and relative, which means that what you call immoral, your neighbor would call moral, and both of you would be perfectly correct.
So which is it? Do you believe there is no such thing as "morally correct", independent of any human? If you do, how do you reconcile that with claiming you don't need to believe in God to know what "morally correct" is?
If not, then why are you even arguing about this, since in such case all morality is arbitrary and therefore we're both right?
It's not hiding a record if there is no record.... which is the whole point of the idea of expunging juvenile records. The court system knows kids screw up sometimes, and it provides an opportunity to undo the damage. The system is merely acknowledging that people can change, and offering to formally recognize that change.
I'll ask you again: are you opposed to the idea of expunging juvenile records in general?
That statement is inconsistent with two thousand years of Christian thought, teachings, and actions.
I'm pretty sure every major Christian church teaches what's referred to as the "golden rule", even the Catholic church...
(Of course, whether people actually live by it is irrelevant, as that merely makes them hypocritical if they don't. You can't judge a belief system harshly merely because its followers don't actually follow it.)
More importantly, the principle itself is wrong. I do not want to be treated like you want to be treated, and you don't want me to treat you like I want to be treated.
Oh? You don't want to be treated with respect, regardless of your beliefs? Did you have an example of what you mean by that?
If you get people to do the right thing by lying to them about the consequences, you have committed two immoral acts
Ah, but here you're assuming that all religions are necessarily false - an assertion that you will have difficulty proving.
I agree that any false religion is immorally leading its followers.
Chances are that the direct cause of how you behave towards other human beings is your biology; you'd behave exactly the same way if you had never heard of Christianity and had been raised Buddhist or atheist instead.
I can think of several specific things I refrain from doing that I can attribute directly to my religion. For example, I did not engage in premarital sex; and, now that I am married, I do not have extramarital sex. I do not view pornography. I do not use foul language.
This is washing over into nature vs nuture, so I'll stop here; I'm just saying, I can directly attribute much of my behavior to my religion, and were I atheist instead I would be a very different person. It's simply ridiculous to claim religion has no bearing on a person's actual behavior.
It also implies that you believe people cannot change, which is also absurd. I have seen hundreds of people make real, meaningful improvements in their life as a direct result of religion (e.g. quitting smoking) - changes they would not have made had they never been introduced to that specific religion. It's ridiculous to pretend their lives would have been no different had they been introduced to that religion decades earlier.
What matters is that a person recognized as being God's representative on earth by hundreds of millions of Christians has used scripture to justify torture and killing.
Haven't we been over this? Feel free to judge the Catholic Church harshly for its leaders' indiscretions, but do not make the absurd leap of logic that because Popes have done bad things, Christianity must therefore be inherently immoral, especially when Catholic teachings are directly contradicted by its own book of scripture.
You and the judge are colluding to hide something that your own beliefs say makes you ineligible for the position.
*sigh* you're still being deliberately thick-headed.
The judge is a trusted third-party - trusted by the bank to make good decisions, and trusted by you to expunge your record.
Should I take it you're opposed to the practice of expunging juvenile records in our court system?
I believe people can certainly have consistent beliefs, and I'm quite certain I'm one of them.
Yes, that's a hallmark of the religious mindset.
I asked for some example of how you think my beliefs are inconsistent. If you can't provide an example, then you're merely blowing smoke.
Feel free to refer to any material you like about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a. Mormons) while you attempt to find some way my beliefs are self-contradictory or inconsistent.
I ask again - show me just one example of my beliefs being logically inconsistent. If you can't, then I win the debate;) Remember, your unilateral assertion was that no human has an internally consistent (self-consistent) set of beliefs.
Or are you saying that no human being can know any of those things for certain?
I wouldn't say that at all. I'll refer again to James 1:
" 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering."
God has clearly stated that he's willing to help us gain wisdom, if we're willing to seek it out.
But aside from that, the scriptures also tell us God sends prophets and apostles to teach us through revelation. It's hardly my fault that most Christians, including Catholics, ignore the parts of the New Testament that say we should still have prophets...
I, for one, believe that God still sends us prophets to teach us, just as the scriptures say.
It's easy to know what is moral and what is not when (between prayer, revelation, scriptures and prophets) you have a direct line to God;)
In this I will say that I can only speak for my church; most of modern Christianity, as I mentioned, no longer believes in prophets, nor do most modern Christians believe in modern revelation, though I will assert they have no scriptural basis for such beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of curiosity - what's with the formal wear? It's 38degC (~100F) in the shade at the moment and two of your brethren knocked on my door about an hour ago dressed in suits.
Can you really not think of any reason? One is that the average person is more likely to listen to two clean-cut guys dressed in suits than to two grubby-looking guys dressed in jeans and a t-shirt, even if both sets of guys intend to discuss the same subject.
The answer to your question is answered in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"
Bicameralism is an attempt to explain why ancient peoples believed a God actually spoke to them by calling it a hallucination, using the physiology of the brain as a basis for the idea.
Another possibility is that a God actually did speak to them.
Also, why there haven't been any not-considered-insane prophets for about 2000 years, and very likely none in the future.
Two points.
1) I believe there are modern prophets and apostles.
2) Even in the Bible, prophets were often considered insane by those they tried to teach. The fact that X million people think Joe is insane does not by itself mean Joe could not actually be a prophet ;) Even Jesus was rejected by his own people in Nazareth.
Also, why people actually used to get replies to their prayers. Real, as far as they were concerned, answers, not a "feeling as if".
I have gotten direct, non-"vague feeling" answers to prayers. Don't pretend your personal experience - or the personal experiences of some others - must be universal, and don't pretend "I can't prove it empirically" is equivalent to "it cannot exist".
In other words, there is no point in praying to find out if an omnipresent being exists if the precondition to praying actually being a form of communication is that such an omnipresent being exists. Circular logic, again.
Praying to ask God if he exists does not already require that you believe in God - it merely requires that you be willing to believe he exists should he answer.
God is responsible for all the suffering and death on earth today, since--being omnipotent--he has the means to prevent it.
Ah, this old horse again.
Any parent knows that the best way to raise children involves allowing the possibility they'll hurt themselves. For example, my daughter was recently learning how to sit down from standing. (She's 9 months old.) She had to fall a few times before she figured out how to do it right. If we sat her down ourselves every single time we saw her about to try, do you really think she'd learn how to do it herself?
This is true on a biological level, too. If you keep your children in a perfectly sterile environment for their entire childhood, their immune systems will not be able to handle going out into the real world where everyone has germs. Letting them get sick sometimes when they're young helps them be stronger later on.
God is doing exactly the same thing. He's letting us learn by allowing our actions to have consequences.
In fact, one cannot learn how to behave if there are no consequences to one's actions!
This all comes back to free will. You are saying, if God existed, he would take away our free will, because we use it to hurt each other. It's a flawed premise. You're shifting the blame from the people who cause suffering onto God. You're saying, if God exists, it's not Joe Murderer's fault, it's God's fault for not stopping Joe. You're saying if God exists, then nothing we do is our fault.
Put more precisely, you're saying free will can only exist if God does not exist. It's ridiculous.
Not at all: many forms of immoral conduct are legal, and many forms of illegal conduct cannot realistically be punished. Therefore, people can make moral choices in their lives.
You're ignoring my point - by your logic, government does remove the capacity for at least some moral decisions.
Would you agree that you, personally, cannot choose to kill merely because it's the right thing to do, because the government will imprison you if you do it?
Are you telling me that your decision to not kill your neighbor is purely utilitarian?
Because you're telling me that my decision to not kill my neighbor is purely utilitarian.
Your premise is, "the promise of a reward or punishment for a particular action or set of actions makes all related decisions purely utilitarian in nature. Such decisions cannot, after such a promise, be based on morality."
Therefore, since the government threatens imprisonment or sometimes death against anyone who murders, by your own logic nobody under that government can possibly choose not to kill simply because it's immoral - it must be a utilitarian decision.
Do you agree?
The message is good, but in reality people are quite arbitrary in the messages they actually 'live'.
You're correct. It should be noted that any person truly striving to be Christlike will search for any hypocrisy within himself and eradicate it.
Christ said, "be ye perfect", and he meant it. Far too many people forget that.
No, they aren't. This is the circular reasoning I was talking about. So I don't believe in any gods. The answer is to ask a god? Asking someone requires the presupposition that this someone exists.
Let's say I tell you about this friend I have, named Steve. I tell you such strange things about him that you decide he must not actually exist - you decide he must be my imaginary friend, and you tell me so.
So I give you Steve's phone number and tell you to call him.
Are you going to throw the phone number away, and continue insisting Steve is imaginary?
The only difference here is the method of communication.
This is the first time that you have admitted to being a member of LDS.
Sorry, I've mentioned it in other branches of the thread more than once, and since you've been the most active participant I guess I assumed I must have mentioned it to you at least once.
And whether Mormon theology and morality is superior to Catholic theology and morality really doesn't matter to me since both religions are false and fraudulent.
You can say Mormonism is false and fraudulent only if you know what it teaches and can show falsehood or fraud ;) "It claims to be Christian" does not by itself make the church fraudulent or false.
Of course, if you think all religions are fraudulent and false, that changes things a little, but it's no less silly - you still must know what something teaches before you can say it is "fraudulent" or "false".
Unless you know what something teaches you cannot truthfully claim it is incorrect. This is as true of religion as it is of a proposed scientific theory or a book of history.
It's misleading for you to pretend to represent their theology or beliefs.
I don't claim to represent the beliefs of most churches who nowadays call themselves Christian. I claim to represent the beliefs of those who called themselves Christian two thousand years ago.
It's dated. Simple as that.
I quite agree - so it's interesting to note that even the Bible mentions the need for ongoing revelation by stating that we would need apostles and prophets "until we all come to a unity in the faith".
Throughout the Bible, God gives people commandments specific to their time and place. Why should it be any different now? If God would send prophets thousands of years ago, it only makes sense that he would continue to do so now, when there are so many new issues to deal with.
Normally a conviction like that stays on the books for X number of years and then is automatically discarded.
Juvenile records in the United States are not automatically expunged or sealed. You have to submit some paperwork and appear before a judge, and not all crimes qualify.
Perhaps you live somewhere besides the US?
Would that suffice? Then I'll invest the two minutes with Google to find the actual quotes.
No, because that doesn't actually address my question. I didn't ask about minor textual discrepancies; I've argued endlessly with people trying to show them that the Bible, as we have it today, cannot be word-for-word the literal word of God, for many reasons, including textual discrepancies.
Rather, my question was one of doctrinal discrepancy. For example, It would be inconsistent to believe that a) God is just, and b) God condemns people who never had the opportunity to accept the gospel to an eternity of torment and suffering. (The Catholic Church falls victim to this logical inconsistency, for example.)
This is a little higher-level than textual analysis; rather, it would be an analysis of what a particular church actually teaches (so long as that church's teachings aren't contradicted by its own books of scripture).
(For the record, my church in particular believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. The fact that so many versions of the Bible exist - many of which contradict each other - merely serves to prove that the Bible is not translated correctly.)
If you can not disprove something, how are you ever going to know that it isn't totally made-up bullshit?
By proving (not disproving) it for yourself :)
The scriptures are actually pretty clear:
If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.
We can ask for wisdom, and if we ask truly believing we'll receive, we will.
But more than that, we're encouraged to test God's promises (see Malachi 3, for example).
And even more than that, we're told that we should look for prophets sent by God to teach us - though we should be wary of false prophets. (One solution is to ask God if Jim is a prophet, given the earlier statement about prayer being available as an method for obtaining truth. You could also judge them for what they do: "By their fruits ye shall know them", as Jesus stated.)
I personally much prefer those, because it leaves you the room to say "that may have been true 2000 years ago, but the world has changed"
I personally believe religion can account for that as well ;) (Mine does, for example, and so did the New Testament, when compared to Old Testament times.)
That means nothing less than that if it were not for religion, you would engage in those acts.
Yes - but it does not mean I would devote every waking moment to those acts. Let me quote you:
you told us that if it weren't for your religion, you'd be a slut, you'd cheat on your wife, you'd be addicted to pornography, and you'd curse like a sailor.
Which is not at all what I said. You took my comment - that I would engage to some degree in these activities were I not religious - to a ridiculous extreme: that I would indulge in these activities like there's no tomorrow.
So in fact you did extrapolate to a ridiculous extreme.
God cannot be the source of absolute morality because God himself has frequently behaved immorally; the Bible gives numerous examples of that.
I don't think so. I'm willing to look at examples.
I believe that God cannot behave immorally - if he did, he would cease to be God.
your belief in God means that you have lost the capacity to make moral choices altogether; while you may still "do the right thing", your belief system means that your choice to do so is not a moral choice anymore, it is merely a utilitarian choice.
By your logic, anyone living under any form of government - even a small one like a family - cannot make moral choices; while they may still "do the right thing", their desire to avoid the government's punishments means their choices are not moral, but merely utilitarian.
In other words, by your logic, the only way one could truly make "moral" choices is by living somewhere without any human contact at all, in order to remove the possibility of others imposing consequences on your actions!
External influence does not negate whether I can actually choose to do something for morality's sake.
To make my point even clearer: let's say I come to your house heavily armed and say "if you ever kill your neighbor, I will shoot you in the face."
Does that mean you're suddenly allowing your neighbor to live for a utilitarian reason, instead of the "it's morally wrong to kill" reason you had before?
You don't seem to have a firm theology at all, but, then, I've already concluded that you're not a Christian anyway.
On the contrary, I have a very concise and clear theology, you're just entirely unfamiliar with the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I'm also insulted that you still say I'm not Christian; if believing Christ is the only path to salvation does not make me Christian, then nobody is Christian.
You know nothing of science, do you? Relativity completely replaces newtonian physics, and no scientist I know or ever read claims otherwise.
Ok, you apparently missed my point. Your claims demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the things you're claiming are inconsistent, just as my hypothetical claims about science did.
It's easy to say $FOO is inconsistent if you don't understand it in the first place.
tell me which evidence would convince you that your religion has been disproven.
Since you can't prove non-existence of God, you're left with finding logical errors or self-consistency problems in my church's doctrine. Find some which cannot be explained in any way other than inconsistency, and I'll be convinced.
I won't hold my breath.
Where can I find authoritative answers which parts are superseded, and how?
The Bible itself provides two answers:
1) Pray and ask God yourself.
2) Prophets who receive revelation directly from God.
Since most of the modern Christian world doesn't believe in prophets anymore (even though the Bible says there must be), and most of them don't believe even in personal revelation through prayer, it's obvious why there are so many doctrinal problems.
I, on the other hand, believe there are still prophets, and that God answers prayers.
And if you claim that religion is not a tool designed to control people's behaviour, then pray, tell what it is for.
I don't disagree that religion is meant to modify peoples' behavior.
I'll merely assert that, if Christ exists as advertised, then he's well within his rights to control our behavior through religion ;)
But christianity isn't taught by the new testament alone. It's taught by both books
Perhaps I should clarify. The behavioral doctrines taught by the New Testament supercede those taught by the Old Testament, e.g. "an eye for an eye" was replaced by "turn the other cheek", "don't commit adultery" was replaced by "don't even *think* about adultery", and so on.
That's what I was referring to.
most of history it followed the old one much more closely than the new one.
The Catholic Church never did follow the New Testament very well.
Christianity is inherently immoral because of its theology.
For the umpteenth time, WHAT MAKES CHRISTIANITY'S THEOLOGY IMMORAL? I have repeatedly asked you this, and all you do is talk about misbehaving popes.
If you want to show me that Christian theology is immoral, you must show me examples of New Testament teachings which are immoral. How many times do I have to ask you for these examples before you give even one?
if even the Pope cannot refrain from murder--and justifying it in the name of Christianity--
So you're telling me that in order for Christianity to be moral, every single one of its members must obey its precepts perfectly, without fail? Or even just that its leaders must obey its precepts perfectly?
That's ludicrous. It's unrealistic to expect someone to be perfect in this life. We are inherently imperfect beings.
I do not disagree that the Catholic Church has twisted Christianity (as taught by the Bible) into something hypocritical, but the original Christianity taught by the Bible does not have that problem.
Christianity evidently also fails even as a practical means of achieving good behavior.
Any plan for self-improvement fails if you don't follow it. Don't blame the instructions, blame the person failing to follow them.
Your complaint seems to be "Christianity can't be valid, simply because so many people fail to follow its directions." That's a whopper of a logical fallacy.
Catholics would vehemently disagree with you that their teachings are contradicted by the Bible.
Sure they would. That wasn't my point. In any case, I can quote their own history books to show them they're wrong.
See, any true religion will be internally consistent - none of its doctrines will contradict any of its other doctrines.
I am fully willing to have my church's doctrines examined in that light. I am willing to stake my reputation on my religion's doctrines being internally self-consistent.
It has been my observation that Catholic doctrines are quite far from self-consistent - even a cursory reading of their histories is enough to see it. I am quite willing to provide examples if you wish.
According to Christianity, Christ was God's final revelation; there are and will be no further revelations or prophets.
Here you go again with "Christianity".
The Bible does not contain those claims, and until it does, you can't tell me Christianity makes those claims.
All you can say is that Catholics makes those claims (or Lutherans, or Protestants, or...)
Do you see my point?
Yes, those groups all call themselves Christian, and yes, those groups make up the majority of the world's Christian population - but they do not represent Christianity in the sense that Christianity was taught in the Bible.
You're trying to tell me Christianity in inherently immoral, but you refuse to let me talk about Christianity as taught by the Bible.
I fully agree that churches which twist their religion into something hypocritical are immoral.
I fully agree that churches which use their influence for gain or oppression are immoral.
But you cannot tell me that Christianity is inherently immoral by pointing to churches which clearly do not practice the things they claim to believe! All you're showing is "hypocrisy is immoral", a statement with which I have never disagreed.
If you want me to believe Christianity itself is immoral, you must refer to teachings in the scriptures which are immoral. Pointing to popes is irrelevant, because even Catholics will tell you that there is no revelation after the Bible, and therefore if a Pope says something immoral, it cannot be doctrine, by their own admission.
Your religion may be Christ-based, but it is evidently not Christian.
"Christian" does not mean "Agrees with everyone else who calls themselves Christian". "Christian" means "worships Christ as the Savior of mankind, and tries to obey him as such". It's ridiculous to say I'm not Christian, because Christ is quite literally the central focus of my religion in every way.
Neither Mormons nor Catholics do that, so clearly they are not even living by the golden rule themselves.
I'm sorry if some people have treated you with disrespect, but don't blame that on the religion - because the religion tells them they should.
(I should note that "treating you with respect" does not include "agreeing with you" or "letting your beliefs take precedence over theirs".)
Based on your statements above, apparently I was wrong: you told us that if it weren't for your religion, you'd be a slut, you'd cheat on your wife, you'd be addicted to pornography, and you'd curse like a sailor.
Good job extrapolating to the extreme. All I said was that I would most probably do those things to some degree, because right now I refrain from them for religious reasons.
That does not in any way mean I would dedicate every waking moment to sex were I not religious.
Take it from me, many other people don't need God or the Bible to tell them that killing, stealing, or cheating on their wife is wrong. I pity anybody who needs religion to figure that out.
Allow me to point out that if there is no religion - or rather, if there is no God - then there's no such thing as "morally correct" in an absolute sense.
If there's no higher power, then all morals are arbitrary and relative, which means that what you call immoral, your neighbor would call moral, and both of you would be perfectly correct.
So which is it? Do you believe there is no such thing as "morally correct", independent of any human? If you do, how do you reconcile that with claiming you don't need to believe in God to know what "morally correct" is?
If not, then why are you even arguing about this, since in such case all morality is arbitrary and therefore we're both right?
It's not hiding a record if there is no record. ... which is the whole point of the idea of expunging juvenile records. The court system knows kids screw up sometimes, and it provides an opportunity to undo the damage. The system is merely acknowledging that people can change, and offering to formally recognize that change.
I'll ask you again: are you opposed to the idea of expunging juvenile records in general?
I was referring to my religion in particular.
Most of what calls itself modern Christianity no longer believes in revelation or prophets, so my comment doesn't apply to them.
That statement is inconsistent with two thousand years of Christian thought, teachings, and actions.
I'm pretty sure every major Christian church teaches what's referred to as the "golden rule", even the Catholic church...
(Of course, whether people actually live by it is irrelevant, as that merely makes them hypocritical if they don't. You can't judge a belief system harshly merely because its followers don't actually follow it.)
More importantly, the principle itself is wrong. I do not want to be treated like you want to be treated, and you don't want me to treat you like I want to be treated.
Oh? You don't want to be treated with respect, regardless of your beliefs? Did you have an example of what you mean by that?
If you get people to do the right thing by lying to them about the consequences, you have committed two immoral acts
Ah, but here you're assuming that all religions are necessarily false - an assertion that you will have difficulty proving.
I agree that any false religion is immorally leading its followers.
Chances are that the direct cause of how you behave towards other human beings is your biology; you'd behave exactly the same way if you had never heard of Christianity and had been raised Buddhist or atheist instead.
I can think of several specific things I refrain from doing that I can attribute directly to my religion. For example, I did not engage in premarital sex; and, now that I am married, I do not have extramarital sex. I do not view pornography. I do not use foul language.
This is washing over into nature vs nuture, so I'll stop here; I'm just saying, I can directly attribute much of my behavior to my religion, and were I atheist instead I would be a very different person. It's simply ridiculous to claim religion has no bearing on a person's actual behavior.
It also implies that you believe people cannot change, which is also absurd. I have seen hundreds of people make real, meaningful improvements in their life as a direct result of religion (e.g. quitting smoking) - changes they would not have made had they never been introduced to that specific religion. It's ridiculous to pretend their lives would have been no different had they been introduced to that religion decades earlier.
What matters is that a person recognized as being God's representative on earth by hundreds of millions of Christians has used scripture to justify torture and killing.
Haven't we been over this? Feel free to judge the Catholic Church harshly for its leaders' indiscretions, but do not make the absurd leap of logic that because Popes have done bad things, Christianity must therefore be inherently immoral, especially when Catholic teachings are directly contradicted by its own book of scripture.
You and the judge are colluding to hide something that your own beliefs say makes you ineligible for the position.
*sigh* you're still being deliberately thick-headed.
The judge is a trusted third-party - trusted by the bank to make good decisions, and trusted by you to expunge your record.
Should I take it you're opposed to the practice of expunging juvenile records in our court system?
I believe people can certainly have consistent beliefs, and I'm quite certain I'm one of them.
Yes, that's a hallmark of the religious mindset.
I asked for some example of how you think my beliefs are inconsistent. If you can't provide an example, then you're merely blowing smoke.
Feel free to refer to any material you like about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a. Mormons) while you attempt to find some way my beliefs are self-contradictory or inconsistent.
I ask again - show me just one example of my beliefs being logically inconsistent. If you can't, then I win the debate ;) Remember, your unilateral assertion was that no human has an internally consistent (self-consistent) set of beliefs.
Forgot to address your last question:
Or are you saying that no human being can know any of those things for certain?
I wouldn't say that at all. I'll refer again to James 1:
" 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering."
God has clearly stated that he's willing to help us gain wisdom, if we're willing to seek it out.
But aside from that, the scriptures also tell us God sends prophets and apostles to teach us through revelation. It's hardly my fault that most Christians, including Catholics, ignore the parts of the New Testament that say we should still have prophets...
I, for one, believe that God still sends us prophets to teach us, just as the scriptures say.
It's easy to know what is moral and what is not when (between prayer, revelation, scriptures and prophets) you have a direct line to God ;)
In this I will say that I can only speak for my church; most of modern Christianity, as I mentioned, no longer believes in prophets, nor do most modern Christians believe in modern revelation, though I will assert they have no scriptural basis for such beliefs.
Was it moral when past Popes burned heretics at the stake?
No.
Or had those Popes failed to accept Christ?
Yes.
Does burning non-believers at the stake count as killing? Does it fall under "thou shalt not kill" (or is that "thou shalt not murder")?
Yes, and yes.
(And yes, I believe it means "thou shalt not murder". God knows our intentions; we will be judged by those as much as by our actions.)
What does that even mean?
I'd say you understood what I meant quite clearly.