I think it's not so much masses of Canadian tourists, as much as it is Canadians getting annoyed at being mis-identified as Americans. They don't seem to like that much. Also, we Australians feel a little empathy towards our Canadian friends - two colonial nations trying desperately to not become American, and failing all the same.
Wooden sailing vessels...can be built from all natural materials.
Um...if by "all natural materials" you mean "wood". When you build a sailing vessel out of stone, you see, it isn't wooden. It also sinks, generally. You could try pumice.
Because you just know the next time he sees a giant elephant statue, he's going to think "Hey, if I impale myself on this things tusks, I could get a free computer game!". Don't be stupid. The kid is five years old, and has just been airlifted to hospital and probably scared half to death.
And remember not to send flowers or chocolates to your next friend who injures themselves and lands in hospital - you'll only encourage them.
It would be really interesting if someone made a game accurately based on the bible (Which version? Ed.) where we could have the crusades for example, or perhaps a Populous type game where you have to invade an alternative culture and "persuade" the natives to convert to your religion
Uh, yeah, 'cause the crusades are mentioned in the Bible after all.
Those people will already have consequences (if any) to face, more consequences imposed by an outside entity (IE God) aren't needed. I'm talking about thoughts, and choices about sex in particular.
The problem with this is that you're distancing God. My argument is that if God created humans, then humans have an obligation to obey God. That's the basis for the whole sin->hell thing.
Just because some of the claims in the Bible are substantiated is not reason to believe that any others are. Each claim needs independent reasoning (for me). I wouldn't be able to believe a bag of statements together like that.
I wouldn't say it proves it. It's only circumstantial. Say you come across a maths book that has thirty theorems in it. You derive twenty-five from first principles, and the books gets them right. You can't prove the other five, but neither can you disprove them. I'd argue that it would be reasonable to make an assumption that the other five are probably true too. They're not proved to be true, but the balance of evidence is a little more on their side than not.
This, I believe, is the root of differences between us in this thread; a difference of values.
Or we both derive our values from a different authority.
I'm glad that we are having a rational discussion; I enjoy a good debate. Good debates are too hard to come by.
Me too. Most of the time I try and debate religion on slashdot I just get hit with flamebait trolls.
Given enough time, everything in the natural world can be explained using science. Where can I go to learn everything about the supernatural world; everything about God? (not just the interface)
Well, we can find out everything about the natural world, because that's what we're living in. I'd surmise that we'll have a greater insight into the supernatural when we have experience of it - after death.
How can you say that homosexuality is a choice when you cannot even choose your own sexual preference? I say this because your main support of sexual preference being a choice is personal belief.
Feeling an inclination or a preference isn't a choice - to act on it, or not is the choice. I don't have any choice about being tempted into lustful thoughts by pretty girls either. But when I excercise self-control, and stop imagining what that girl would look like with her clothes off, for example, I'm making a choice. Being tempted is not sinning - Jesus was tempted. Acting on the temptation is sinning.
As a side note, "acting on temptation" doesn't have to be physical. As I alluded to just above, I think sitting around fantasizing about having sex with a girl is wrong - but that's not the same as being tempted to. Self-control applies to mental "actions" as well as physical. It's a very fine distinction I'm making, and I'm not sure I'm doing a great job at putting it into words.
I'm all for self-control, but I don't think I could change my preference either. Maybe by a program of professional behavior modification or brainwashing.
Maybe not, but I think if someone exercises self-control habitually, it gets easier. The same way as when a smoker keeps ignoring their cravings; eventually, they'll lessen.
Sure, when people get involved in a relationship, there is risk. Evaluating that risk is a responsibility that belongs to the individuals involved.
I agree. And the individuals still can choose to do that - they do all the time in our world. All the Bible is doing is presenting the best way to live - and the consequences of not living that way. I firmly believe that the repurcussions of the actions proscribed by the Bible are *consequences*, not necessarily *punishment*. Not to say that God doesn't punish people, but you've got to make a distinction between God's punishment, and the natural consequences of one's actions.
Is there a way to find out what that reason is? If the Bible doesn't contain the answer, can someone ask God and get a straight answer? Perhaps a representative?
Theologians try and figure that sort of stuff out all the time. Your best bet would be to ask someone who is some sort of qualifications in theology. If they can give you an answer, they should also be able to give a reason behind the answer.
You believe them because the Bible tells you so; you do not believe them based on individual merits. Am I wrong?
Sort of. I believe they have individual merits because they're in the Bible, but I just don't particularly know what those merits are. Some I can see, some I can't, maybe because I'm not knowledgable enough, or don't have experience in that area. I assume that since I can find reasons for some, there probably are reasons for the rest of them.
I don't appreciate being told that there are things I don't need to know. When I learn them, I will make that decision for myself. So far, there has been nothing I have encountered that I wouldn't like to know.
What I'm trying to say is, the Bible tells us all we need to know in order to have a relationship with God. It doesn't tell us everything - it doesn't tell us who'll win the next presidential election, it doesn't tell us the secret to nuclear fusion, it doesn't tell us how to build a computer. The Bible has a specific purpose, and it doesn't talk much about things outside its purpose. We've got to figure the rest of the stuff out ourselves.
Are you capable of becoming sexually excited about any person, regardless of their sex?
No. But then, I don't see myself as having a particular problem in the homosexuality department. I have problems in other areas, where my natural inclination goes against what God says I should do. Sometimes I do what is right, and sometimes I succumb to temptation, but I try (and am getting more successful, as time goes by and I grow in God) to exercise self-control and keep myself to what I believe rather than what I desire.
What does God have against people having sex with whom they want? What is so bad about it? Does the Bible provide actual reasons for this apparently arbitrary law?
He puts restrictions of heterosexual sex as well; it's only for within marriage. The Bible says that sex should be an exclusive relationship. Sex acts as an intesifying force in a relationship. In a married couple, sex can help them develop intimacy, and keep them together. In an unmarried couple, I suppose it can do the same thing. But an unmarried couple doesn't have that social contract that constrains them to stay together - even these days, married people are more likely to stay together than unmarried. When a guy breaks up with his girlfriend, its most often painful for at least one of them. If its a sexual relationship, its usually even more painful. I know of one person, indirectly (a friend of a friend) who committed suicide after a sexual relationship broke apart. Sex adds compliations to a relationship that needs the structure of a public and formal commitment to each other (ie: marriage) to keep things running smoothly. As for the "why" of homosexuality, I don't really know. I act on the assumption that God has a reason.
Which is just as much an answer as science gives (as far as first causes go). The difference is, science is built around chains of cause and effect - it is supposed to know what caused something. The Christian religion is built around faith. That's not to say that faith "trumps" science. Its just that people who take something on faith aren't so fussed with demonstrating a causal chain as people who believe only in science. In this case, since there cannot be a causal chaain, the question is pretty much moot.
you start out with 1000 questions, you end up with just 1. The religion is then based both on finding answers to that question
Yep. It boils down to "does God exist" and "if he does, is the Bible his inspired word". My entire belief system is derived from answering "Yes" to both those questions.
Christian claims cannot be proven or disproven as they are not falsifiable.
Yes, I know. That's why I said "just as impervious to disproving as Christian claims" - implying that Christian claims are not disprovable.
When inconsistencies in the bible are pointed out, it is said they are intentional.
If I could find a flat contradiction in the Bible, particularly in an area of teaching or morality, I would be very interesed in it. That said, if the Bible is the inspired word, even the narratic (which is pretty much incidental) should be consistent. The bit you mentioned about Jesus' last words on the cross isn't necessarily contradictory. The gospels say that Jesus said two things before he died. Neither say he said only one of the things. It is entirely consistent to surmise that he said both of them, and the gospel writers each chose to record only one. There are other incidents in the gospels where one author skims over an event, or omits it entirely, while another gives it in great detail.
When bad behaviour of fanatics is pointed out, it is said they aren't real followers.
I'd say if the fanatics behaviour is not consistant with what the Bible teaches, then they shouldn't be used as a measure of Christianity. They may or may not be real followers, but either way, they're not living what they claim.
When there is lack of proof, it is said that no amount of proof would be convincing anyway.
But I can't see a lack of proof. I look at the Bible, and I see heaps of proof. The issue isn't that the Bible doesn't contain proof - it's that you don't believe the Bible. The proof is contingent upon one particular fact, which I believe and you do not. Therefore I see lots of proof, and you see none.
If you find it just to kill children "even" for blasphemy, then I sincerely question your ethics.
The word in my translation is "youths", which implies a bit more age than "children". But to answer your question, I'd consider it wrong for me to kill anyone for blasphemy. It would be hypocritical, and as I am a fallible human, my judgement could be wrong. But for God it's not hypocritical, and he has the facts to make a perfect judgement.
But then, is it OK in your view for me to die for being sinful too? You don't feel there may be anything wrong with that line of thinking?
Yes. And it would be right for me to die for being sinful. The fact that we can escape that penalty is a manifestation of God's justice. He must give the penalty, in order to fulfil his just nature. But he offers to take the penalty on himself instead of us, in order to fulfil his merciful nature.
But it is not possible to fulfill all rules without breaking those of the society we live in.
I can't think of any rules that would violate the laws of my society - most of the laws the Bible gives are to do with *not* doing things. Our legal system generally doesn't care about inaction - except in cases of negligence. If you're talking about the punishments God lists, then bear in mind that God is telling
The laws that are no longer valid seem a bit arbitrary. What changed to make them obsolete? What purpose did they have in the first place? (two types of plants in a field?)
I'm not sure - I know nothing about agriculture. I know some of the other laws did have a purpose, so I assume this one would too. What changed is Jesus' coming. The whole bit in the Old Testament about being "clean and unclean" was symbolic of the Israelites, as the people of God, being different from the nations around them. With Jesus' coming, the opportunity to be a part of God's family was extended to the nations - so there's no need to stay separate from them, etc.
How just can God's actions be just if the actions of two people can condemn an entire species? How can children be held accountable for the actions of their parents; parents seperated by at least 6000 generations?
Ok, I'll try analogy again. Think of it as a war. Adam and Eve declared war on God. All their descendants were born on that side of the war. Just like all those people that were born in Russia a few decades ago. They were automatically part of Russia, part of the enemy of the United States. Because of the actions of the people ruling them, and because their parents were Russian.
If God can be completely understood, in every way, then God is not supernatural. Where can I go to get a literal description of God's internal workings, as unambiguous and complete as the source code for the Linux kernel?
You can't. The Bible gives us all the knowledge we need to know about God, but it doesn't tell us everything. Some there's no point to know, and some we probably wouldn't be able to grasp. Also, my definition of "supernatural" is not "inexplicable", but of something outside our universe. Because it is outside our universe, it is not bound by the natural laws that are in place in our uiverse. "supernatural" -> "outside nature".
That's nice; you've equated opposing positions with close-mindedness. Without actual support.
Not opposing positions - just the people that say "there is no evidence". There's plenty of evidence. Now if you acknowledge there is some evidence, but don't believe it, or don't accept it, that's a different story
Homosexuality isn't a choice. If someone believes that what they are (homosexual) is to be hated (since it's a sin), but they can't change it, that person will hate himself.
Now whose making an assertion without proof? Where is your evidence that homosexuality is not a personal choice? I believe it is a choice. But even if there is a genetic disposition to homosexuality, that doesn't mean it can't be sinful. I know people, who, by their backgrounds, have been predisposed towards drinking and violence. Most of them don't just say "it's out of my hands, might as well let it rule my life". They exercise self-control. In much the same way, I might say, a heterosexual with a tendancy to sleep around should exercise self-control. Much too big a deal is made out of homosexuality, IMO. Yes, it's a sin. But so is having an affair, or stealing, or bearing false witness. But there's not so much ranting against those as there is against homosexuality.
Not just some generic 'some people will go to hell' but God must know exactly which people will go, what sins committed, and when, before it all happens. Every detial. Since God does not do things by accident, God must have sent all those people deliberately to hell. God must have chosen exactly which people, chosen which sins they were to commit, and when they were to commit them.
No. God knew who would ask for repentance and who wouldn't, but he didn't make that choice for them. What you are saying, is that if God knows in advance what somebody will do, then God is making that person do it. In essence, "Can there be foreknowledge without predestination?". That's a philosophical question rather than a theological one, and I know at least one fat book that's been written on the subject. People are still arguing over it. My perspective is, if God gives you a choice, it is your choice, and the consequences are your responsibility, despite the fact that God knew what you were going to do beforehand.
Are you saying that the ten commandments aren't completely literal? I always thought they were meant to be taken literally and absolutely.
No, they're literal. They talk about what sin is. The laws that can be ignored after Jesus are the ones that talk about ceremonial cleanliness - laws about food, laws about planting two types of plants in a field, laws about wearing certain types of clothes.
So God is a black box that cannot be understood? How can I trust something that cannot be understood? Science can, and has been, providing exact explinations for everything.
I'm not saying God cannot be understood. I'm saying that divine judgement is God's business, not mine. I shouldn't start making decisions about who God should send to hell and who not. I'm not equipped to make those judgements. He is.
Are you saying that the Bible is being taken out of context? Shouldn't a perfect book provide any context necessary to understand it correctly, at least for its design life?
No, I'm not really saying its being taken out of context. I'm saying that, in parts, it doesn't attempt to "prove itself" because it's operating on the assumption that the people who are reading already believe. Just like an aeroplane manual wouldn't attempt to prove the laws of aerodynamics and demonstrate that heavier-than-air flying machines really were possible, the Old Testament doesn't attempt to prove the existance of God, because it's talking to people who already believe. The New Testament, because it's the start of an evangelistic (spreading the message) religion, does.
Is being a child a special circumstance, or not? When did those Egyptian infants have an oppurtunity to sin?
Firstly, you don't have to be that old to start doing things wrong. Secondly, after Adam, all people were born sinful. Before Adam sinned, the default setting for humans was "following God". After Adam sinned, the default setting was switched to "rebelling against God".
If God has to specifically open their eyes, then it isn't the person's choice until that happens.
People could choose to open their eyes and see themselves. But the fact is, we don't. We're stubborn and set in our ways.
And what do you beleve is the cause of homosexuality? How would you propose it be better 'treated'?
The cause of homosexuality (and every other sin, for that matter) is disobedience to God. That is the definition of sin. Outlawing homosexuality isn't going to get one homosexual into heaven. It's just going to make them complain about tyrannical Christians. The only way you're going to get a homosexual into heaven, is to show them the word of God.
Conclusion: People go to hell because God deliberately put them there (indirectly).
Yes, if you want to put it that way. God set up the circumstances that he knew would end up with some people in hell. However, those same circumstances gave man free will. God could not have given man free will without giving him the opportunity to rebel and go to hell.
It does not change that 99.999...% of the time higher entities appear to have complete respect for the physical laws and consistencies of the universe
Well, if they created those laws, why wouldn'y they? My "proof" of the presence of a higher being would be existence itself. I have yet to find a scientific explanation for the existence of reality. Science is fundamentally inequipped to deal with such a question, IMO. Science deals with chains of cause and effect. It cannot come up with a "first cause". The only scientific explanation is that the universe just always has existed - a claim which is just as impervious to disproving as Christian claims.
And you think he was giving the perfect example of a forgiving and kind spirit when he summoned his god to kill people?
I'm assuming the "he" in this is Elisha? Well firstly, man doesn't "summon" God. The word "summon" implies he has some sort of control over God. That's not how it works. And no, I'd say he was giving the perfect example of a just god.
So in your view it was OK for them to die because of the choice of their leader who was not even democratically elected.
It was OK for them to die because they were sinful.
If you accept that rule, you must also accept "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
And I would agree with that rule. As long as you have a sufficiently strict definition of "curse" - not someone saying "Gee, my Mum sucks sometimes". I might disagree with the punishment - in our current society, we have an infrastructure that opens up other alternatives for punishment that the Jews at the time just didn't have. I might have to think on that one a bit more.
The question is: assuming the laws in the bible are the only right ones, how would they apply to believers today? Is the current legal system blasphemous to higher forces for not imposing capital punishment?
Firstly, the rules given to Christians aren't any particular problem of the legal system. The rules given to God's people only apply to God's people, the same way American law only applies to Americans. The answer to the second question is a bit complicated. The purpose of the law given in the Old Testament was three-fold (at least three, maybe more I can't think of).
It was supposed to give the Israelites a moral compass - show them what was wrong and what was right.
It was designed to show them that people can never be perfect. Everyone broke some aspect of the law, and the ancient Israelites realized that.
It was supposed to show the rest of the nations that the Israelites were different to the rest of them. God's people are supposed to show up.
With the coming of Jesus in the New Testament, the application of the law changes. Jesus says "I did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill the law". The fulfillment means that some aspects of the law are no longer applicable - they've served their purpose. As a general guide, look through the Old Testament. The ones that mention ceremonial "cleanliness" and "uncleanliness" are the ones that are fulfilled, because a Jesus makes all who believe in him "clean". Anything that talks about sin is still going. Because sin won't be dealt with until Jesus comes back for the second time.
You're saying it's (part of) his job to kill non-believers? Exactly how am I supposed to interpret that statement?
Every unbeliever dies. So does every believer for that matter. How, when and why that happens is God's business, not mine, except in specific instances.
Perhaps he should have more self-esteem then and get out more and meet other people.
What does self-esteem have to do with letting people who renegge on their promises get away with it? I'd like to see a judge pass down that judgement - "Request for compensation is denied, because the plaintiff has low self-esteem".
That argument is indeed used a lot when people commen
Don't get so defensive - it's a logical enough assumption. As people get given more authority, they are exposed to more scrutiny, and more security checks. Also, as their paycheque rises, it will take more and more money to bribe them. It will always be easier to bribe a private than a general, because a) There are a lot more privates than generals and b) Nobody pays as much attention to privates than they do generals. It's statistical, it's got nothing to do with relative morals throughout the ranks.
"There are some things that God cannot do. That's not because he isn't omnipotent, it's because they are logically impossible. God cannot create a square circle, because the two terms exclude each other. God cannot create a world with free will without creating a world that has the possibility of sin, because the two are mutually exclusive. If a person does not have the ability to sin, they do not have free will"
But if they listen in on your call, that means they hearing what the person on the other line says as well. What compensation do they get for losing their privacy? Will they even know that whenever you call them, every word they say is being recorded for market analysis? The same with GMail - it's not just the users of it whose mail gets analyzed - it's anyone in communication with them. This is only compounded by the problem of forwarding mail from a non-GMail address to a GMail address - then you don't even know your mail is being archived.
Perhaps you can give reference to yours and I will give you some of mine:-)
Bear in mind as I answer these what I said before about all mankind being evil. Everyone has sinned, and therefore deserves death. The fact that we're not all dead is representative of God's grace - he wants to give us as much time as possible to repent and avoid punishment. But the fact remains that as sinners, we deserve death.
Capital punishment for insulting someone
Capital punishment for insulting God's messenger and, by implication, God himself.
Killing scores of totally innocent children and babies
Well, the first-born of Egypt weren't all children. If they were fifty years old, but still the first-born of their parents, they would have died too. But yes, children would have died. The state of "natural innocence" in a child isn't a view the Bible subscribes to. A child is just as guilty of their sin as an adult.
The LORD is a warrior?
This comes from the middle of a song the Israelites were singing, so it's pretty fair to guess they weren't being literal. What they're saying is God just kicked the butt of the Egyptian army - what a mighty warrior!
Numerous examples of capital punishment for silly reasons
Silly reasons? Even our sexually tolerant society still bunishes people who have sex with animals. Quite aside from any moral considerations is that a human who has sex with animals can act as a vector of disease to other humans. In an age without condoms, that sort of thing was a physical threat as well as a moral one. As I said, I think God gaves laws for good reasons, not just because he was arbitrary.
Capital punishment for exercising your human rights
The Bible doesn't recognize the same human rights as you do. But remember, these laws were being spoken to the Jews for the Jews. He wasn't necessarily saying "Go out and kill every non-believer" (they wouldn't have enough rocks, and that God's job anyway, eventually) - He was talking about anyone who says they worship God and then goes off and worships Baal too. The relationship between God and his people is an exclusive one - like marriage. God isn't fond of adultery.
Be careful with how you pronounce things
I thought it would be that passage:) They didn't kill them because they mis-pronounced sibboleth, they killed them because they were the enemy force in a war. The Ephraimites couldn't pronounce the words properly - the same way English speakers (well, me, anyway) can't do those glottal stops particularly well. They used their accent as proof of their identity, when they tried to sneak through the borders.
We're intentionally being lied to by your god and we are chosen (from the start)
Another one you could have used is the parable of the sower, where Jesus afterwards tells his disciples that the parable wasn't intended to enlighten, but confuse the listener. The basic point is the same - unless someone seeks God, they are not going to understand his message. If someone does not love God, all they are going to see is the illusory pleasure of evil.
Matthew seems to have another idea about it than you do.
He's talking particularly to his disciples(v1) - not to unbelievers. Yes, Christians will be rewarded according to what they did when they were alive - but just because you had a crappy life here on Earth doesn't mean you get a free ticked into heaven. Which was the point I was trying to make.
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?
That's one reason why it is so emotionally intense. There are all sorts of fairly empty consolations you can say (in fact, I'd say any sort of consolation is fairly empty in those circumstances), but telling the
What about when god commands the evil? Are you omitting the Old Testament because it suits your touchy-feely idea of god? You know, the loving god who commands rape, pillage and infanticide?
Nope, I believe the old testament is just as true as the new. I can't remember anywhere God commands rape, offhand - most of the time the Jews are pretty darned punished for fraternising with the gentiles. But as for the rest, you've got to remember one of the fundamentals of Christianity is that, essentially, every human is evil by nature, and deserves to die. Including Christians and Jews. It's only because God is a god of grace as well as a god of justice that there's anyone left on the planet.
As I said in some other post on this thread, I don't think that a wrathful, angry god and a loving, gracious god are necessarily mutually exclusive. I can name a number of people I love who I've been justifiably furious with, but was willing to forgive them all the same - and I'm just a man. God's got far more reason to be irritated than I did - and yet it turns out his far more gracious than me as well.
God created a universe with the potential for sin, because it is impossible to create a world that has free will without having the potential for sin built in. God cannot do what is logically impossible - he can't create a square circle.
But the mean thing is that the servant who chooses for that freedom gets severely punished for that choice. Only one real choice is given: serve or die.
No, the person who chooses to rebel gets the consequences. If they reject God, then they spend eternity away of him, and away from the good things he provides. That is the definition of hell. Its the absence of God. People who go to hell aren't sent there because God's snooty at them for not believing - they wanted a world without God and they got it.
If *our* (as in: us humans) laws and morals are based on that deity or the teachings of that deity, shouldn't he/she/it show the superlative of qualities we greatly respect in humans today?
Definately. What aspect of God do you think is immoral?
if the system on earth is fallible and they were unjustly killed (assuming the punishment itself is just), then surely they will be compensated in an afterlife?
That isn't a part of the Christian religion as far as I know. There's no concept of karma. What happens to you after death isn't a compensation payout for all the bad stuff that happened in life - its a binary state. Your either in heaven or in hell.
What I find sort of surprising is that some people can be totally sure someone is going to heaven, yet still intensely mourn their death. It would make more sense to throw a party when someone starts living the eternal happy life.
Yes, it would. But part of the mourning is the simple fact that you're not going to see the dead person for the rest of your life. I've been to Christian funerals, and I've been to non-Christian funerals. In my experience, there is much less of a feeling of anguish and a Christian funeral. The non-Christian funerals I've been to have tended to be very emotionally intense.
The same thing that's wrong with thinking in black-and-white.
My point was that not all things require complex solutions. There's nothing wrong with simplistic answer to a simplistic problem.
If that is true, then it is odd that the legal profession is such a complicated one and that even people of exactly the same religion disagree so much with eachother about the exact interpretation. So, yes... it is "simple" to draw a line and say "don't cross it". The complexity is in defining that line and defining the appropriate punishment.
As you say. My comment was "a price must be paid for sin". That's a simple concept, and I still think it's true. Defining the crime and defining the punishment might be complex, but the basic concept is simple, and its pretty much the foundation of our judicial system.
I can't remember at any stage saying God was flabbergasted, nor can I think of any doctrine that implies such.
Quote me a passage that says God was surprised and ignorant. The passage you mentioned in Genesis doesn't quite cut it. God obviously knew they'd eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It's the equivelant of a parent confronting a naughty child with "Did you break Mummy's best vase?" They already know the answer, what they want is the child to own up. In Genesis, what we get is the man saying "The woman made me do it" and the woman saying "The snake made me do it". The very first reaction to sin is trying to pass the blame.
All it is, is following the self-centered and narcissistic tendencies of someone who supposedly lived 2000 years ago and claimed that no salvation could take place outside of him and that nonbelievers will the cast in lakes of fire.
Yup. The thing is, is that if Jesus really *was* God, then the self-centred narcissism you speak of was really just the truth. It all comes down to the question: "Was Jesus really who he said he was?"
Also: how is it possible that the knowledge of good & evil came from something created by an entity and yet that entity is claimed to have no actual knowledge of what he created... ?
I went and reread some of the articles on that particular experiment, and if you are right, then it seems these articles are wrong (not unknown in reporting a highly technical field, but one of the is the Quantum Optics Group press release).
That press release says "the objects transported are extremely small particles like electrons and photons". That sounds like physical teleportation, not teleportation of an abstract (like information).
Another article quotes the lead scientist: "What we have demonstrated here is that we can take billions of photons, destroy them simultaneously, and then recreate them in another place," Dr Lam says. (BBC).
That sounds a lot like teleportation to me. Also, if the beam is destroyed and an existing beam is modified to become a replica of the first, what happens to the energy in the first beam? I understood "destroyed" to mean gone, not transformed into another type of energy. If one beam is destroyed (not transformed), and another not created, isn't that a net loss of energy?
So you are claiming that this all-powerful God was incapable to guess this nature or predict that this might in fact happen or that if he put the equivalent of a candy jar close to them, statistics would indicate that they would - at some point - eat from it?
No, Im saying he knew what would happen. But he also would have known that if he took away all opportunity for man to sin, then there would be now free will. Having a servant who is unaware of the concept of freedom is now great thing. Having a servant who knows what freedom is, and chooses to serve anyway is something else.
I think you'll find that capital punishment is seen as barbaric in many parts of the civilized world. Should we be worried when we as mortals are more humane than the "god" some people claim made us?
"Humane" is a term that has little to do with justice. The advantage God has over human legal systems is that God is infallible, which is probably the main argument I hear against the death penalty (and, incidentally, why I oppose it).
No, it doesn't. That explanation is simplistic.
What's wrong with simplistic? It's the basis of all moral and legal codes. Here's the line. Step over it, and you'll be punished. It's not a situation that requires a complex resolution.
The real paradox is how your "god" can be all-powerful and all-knowing, yet be flabbergasted when his designs work exactly as he designed them?
I can't remember at any stage saying God was flabbergasted, nor can I think of any doctrine that implies such. "Disproving" things the other side in a debate never believed in the first place is called making a strawman argument. It's not helpful to either party.
But as is so often seen: those people think that that is the ONLY thing that works for anybody and even go so far as to claim that good morals cannot exist outside the scope of their own "god" or their own thinking.
Yes, and I would be one of them. If people don't acknowledge their sinfulness, and turn to God for salvation, then they will be seperated from him for eternity. That's hell. That's not pettyness or meanness, that's simply giving people what they want. As for claiming good morals cannot exist outside the scope of Christianity - I'm not sure exactly what you mean. There certainly can be people who do good things and behave morally without subscribing to Christianity. But they're still going to hell. God's standard is perfection, and nobody can reach that without God's help. All Christianity is, really, is asking for that help.
Interestingly (paradoxically to you perhaps), they rarely teach the merits of their views by example.
I would have said "sadly". There are really two kinds of people like that: people who aren't really Christians, and give believers a bad name through their behaviour, and real Christians who do fall down and make mistakes. It's generally impossible for us to tell the difference between the two. The Bible says the difference is repentance and recompense. If someone's willing to admit they were wrong, stop doing it, and do what they can to correct the problem they created, that's a good sign. I'd also say that one sin stands out a lot more than a life of holiness. You saying that Christians "rarely teach the merits of their views by example" is probably not the result of any statistics, but simply the fact that a Christian being bad is news, but a Christian being good isn't.
Feel free to keep replying, but I won't write back until tonight. I've got work to do, and I really can't afford to spend too much more time on slashdot.
What impossible premise? Convince me it's garbage, and I'll reject it. I have evaluated its truth value, and I find it sufficient.
You're forgetting the best way for an idea to propagate itself - be the truth. Before dismissing Christianity as a meme that should be filtered out by an immune system, demonstrate how it is false.
Feel free to keep replying, but I won't write back until tonight. I've got work to do, and I really can't afford to spend too much more time on slashdot.
Maybe you should look up the mechanism described before you denigrate it as "silly". I wrote in some other post to some other Anonymous Coward today about precisely that paradox - being perfectly just and perfectly merciful.
The punishment for sin is death. God cannot ignore that, because he is just. But he is also perfectly merciful. What does he do? He takes the penalty for sin on himself (maintaing justice) and saves those who truly repent (maintain mercy). God has the distinct advantage over our legal system in that he actualy can tell if someone has really changed their ways.
Feel free to keep replying, but I won't write back until tonight. I've got work to do, and I really can't afford to spend too much more time on slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's not so much masses of Canadian tourists, as much as it is Canadians getting annoyed at being mis-identified as Americans. They don't seem to like that much. Also, we Australians feel a little empathy towards our Canadian friends - two colonial nations trying desperately to not become American, and failing all the same.
Wooden sailing vessels...can be built from all natural materials.
Um...if by "all natural materials" you mean "wood". When you build a sailing vessel out of stone, you see, it isn't wooden. It also sinks, generally. You could try pumice.
Because you just know the next time he sees a giant elephant statue, he's going to think "Hey, if I impale myself on this things tusks, I could get a free computer game!". Don't be stupid. The kid is five years old, and has just been airlifted to hospital and probably scared half to death. And remember not to send flowers or chocolates to your next friend who injures themselves and lands in hospital - you'll only encourage them.
So your idea is to put something designed to get people to look at it on something designed to stop people looking. I'd patent that one real quick!
It would be really interesting if someone made a game accurately based on the bible (Which version? Ed.) where we could have the crusades for example, or perhaps a Populous type game where you have to invade an alternative culture and "persuade" the natives to convert to your religion
Uh, yeah, 'cause the crusades are mentioned in the Bible after all.
And that doesn't make him a tool, it makes him "employed"
Not anymore.
'cause we all get a day off work when she has her birthday.
Or, to paraphrase Princess Leia: "The more you tighten you grip, Hollywood, the more DVDs will slip through your fingers."
Those people will already have consequences (if any) to face, more consequences imposed by an outside entity (IE God) aren't needed. I'm talking about thoughts, and choices about sex in particular.
The problem with this is that you're distancing God. My argument is that if God created humans, then humans have an obligation to obey God. That's the basis for the whole sin->hell thing.
Just because some of the claims in the Bible are substantiated is not reason to believe that any others are. Each claim needs independent reasoning (for me). I wouldn't be able to believe a bag of statements together like that.
I wouldn't say it proves it. It's only circumstantial. Say you come across a maths book that has thirty theorems in it. You derive twenty-five from first principles, and the books gets them right. You can't prove the other five, but neither can you disprove them. I'd argue that it would be reasonable to make an assumption that the other five are probably true too. They're not proved to be true, but the balance of evidence is a little more on their side than not.
This, I believe, is the root of differences between us in this thread; a difference of values.
Or we both derive our values from a different authority.
I'm glad that we are having a rational discussion; I enjoy a good debate. Good debates are too hard to come by.
Me too. Most of the time I try and debate religion on slashdot I just get hit with flamebait trolls.
Given enough time, everything in the natural world can be explained using science. Where can I go to learn everything about the supernatural world; everything about God? (not just the interface)
Well, we can find out everything about the natural world, because that's what we're living in. I'd surmise that we'll have a greater insight into the supernatural when we have experience of it - after death.
How can you say that homosexuality is a choice when you cannot even choose your own sexual preference? I say this because your main support of sexual preference being a choice is personal belief.
Feeling an inclination or a preference isn't a choice - to act on it, or not is the choice. I don't have any choice about being tempted into lustful thoughts by pretty girls either. But when I excercise self-control, and stop imagining what that girl would look like with her clothes off, for example, I'm making a choice. Being tempted is not sinning - Jesus was tempted. Acting on the temptation is sinning.
As a side note, "acting on temptation" doesn't have to be physical. As I alluded to just above, I think sitting around fantasizing about having sex with a girl is wrong - but that's not the same as being tempted to. Self-control applies to mental "actions" as well as physical. It's a very fine distinction I'm making, and I'm not sure I'm doing a great job at putting it into words.
I'm all for self-control, but I don't think I could change my preference either. Maybe by a program of professional behavior modification or brainwashing.
Maybe not, but I think if someone exercises self-control habitually, it gets easier. The same way as when a smoker keeps ignoring their cravings; eventually, they'll lessen.
Sure, when people get involved in a relationship, there is risk. Evaluating that risk is a responsibility that belongs to the individuals involved.
I agree. And the individuals still can choose to do that - they do all the time in our world. All the Bible is doing is presenting the best way to live - and the consequences of not living that way. I firmly believe that the repurcussions of the actions proscribed by the Bible are *consequences*, not necessarily *punishment*. Not to say that God doesn't punish people, but you've got to make a distinction between God's punishment, and the natural consequences of one's actions.
Is there a way to find out what that reason is? If the Bible doesn't contain the answer, can someone ask God and get a straight answer? Perhaps a representative?
Theologians try and figure that sort of stuff out all the time. Your best bet would be to ask someone who is some sort of qualifications in theology. If they can give you an answer, they should also be able to give a reason behind the answer.
You believe them because the Bible tells you so; you do not believe them based on individual merits. Am I wrong?
Sort of. I believe they have individual merits because they're in the Bible, but I just don't particularly know what those merits are. Some I can see, some I can't, maybe because I'm not knowledgable enough, or don't have experience in that area. I assume that since I can find reasons for some, there probably are reasons for the rest of them.
I don't appreciate being told that there are things I don't need to know. When I learn them, I will make that decision for myself. So far, there has been nothing I have encountered that I wouldn't like to know.
What I'm trying to say is, the Bible tells us all we need to know in order to have a relationship with God. It doesn't tell us everything - it doesn't tell us who'll win the next presidential election, it doesn't tell us the secret to nuclear fusion, it doesn't tell us how to build a computer. The Bible has a specific purpose, and it doesn't talk much about things outside its purpose. We've got to figure the rest of the stuff out ourselves.
Are you capable of becoming sexually excited about any person, regardless of their sex?
No. But then, I don't see myself as having a particular problem in the homosexuality department. I have problems in other areas, where my natural inclination goes against what God says I should do. Sometimes I do what is right, and sometimes I succumb to temptation, but I try (and am getting more successful, as time goes by and I grow in God) to exercise self-control and keep myself to what I believe rather than what I desire.
What does God have against people having sex with whom they want? What is so bad about it? Does the Bible provide actual reasons for this apparently arbitrary law?
He puts restrictions of heterosexual sex as well; it's only for within marriage. The Bible says that sex should be an exclusive relationship. Sex acts as an intesifying force in a relationship. In a married couple, sex can help them develop intimacy, and keep them together. In an unmarried couple, I suppose it can do the same thing. But an unmarried couple doesn't have that social contract that constrains them to stay together - even these days, married people are more likely to stay together than unmarried. When a guy breaks up with his girlfriend, its most often painful for at least one of them. If its a sexual relationship, its usually even more painful. I know of one person, indirectly (a friend of a friend) who committed suicide after a sexual relationship broke apart. Sex adds compliations to a relationship that needs the structure of a public and formal commitment to each other (ie: marriage) to keep things running smoothly. As for the "why" of homosexuality, I don't really know. I act on the assumption that God has a reason.
There is no answer to that question.
Which is just as much an answer as science gives (as far as first causes go). The difference is, science is built around chains of cause and effect - it is supposed to know what caused something. The Christian religion is built around faith. That's not to say that faith "trumps" science. Its just that people who take something on faith aren't so fussed with demonstrating a causal chain as people who believe only in science. In this case, since there cannot be a causal chaain, the question is pretty much moot.
you start out with 1000 questions, you end up with just 1. The religion is then based both on finding answers to that question
Yep. It boils down to "does God exist" and "if he does, is the Bible his inspired word". My entire belief system is derived from answering "Yes" to both those questions.
Christian claims cannot be proven or disproven as they are not falsifiable.
Yes, I know. That's why I said "just as impervious to disproving as Christian claims" - implying that Christian claims are not disprovable.
When inconsistencies in the bible are pointed out, it is said they are intentional.
If I could find a flat contradiction in the Bible, particularly in an area of teaching or morality, I would be very interesed in it. That said, if the Bible is the inspired word, even the narratic (which is pretty much incidental) should be consistent. The bit you mentioned about Jesus' last words on the cross isn't necessarily contradictory. The gospels say that Jesus said two things before he died. Neither say he said only one of the things. It is entirely consistent to surmise that he said both of them, and the gospel writers each chose to record only one. There are other incidents in the gospels where one author skims over an event, or omits it entirely, while another gives it in great detail.
When bad behaviour of fanatics is pointed out, it is said they aren't real followers.
I'd say if the fanatics behaviour is not consistant with what the Bible teaches, then they shouldn't be used as a measure of Christianity. They may or may not be real followers, but either way, they're not living what they claim.
When there is lack of proof, it is said that no amount of proof would be convincing anyway.
But I can't see a lack of proof. I look at the Bible, and I see heaps of proof. The issue isn't that the Bible doesn't contain proof - it's that you don't believe the Bible. The proof is contingent upon one particular fact, which I believe and you do not. Therefore I see lots of proof, and you see none.
If you find it just to kill children "even" for blasphemy, then I sincerely question your ethics.
The word in my translation is "youths", which implies a bit more age than "children". But to answer your question, I'd consider it wrong for me to kill anyone for blasphemy. It would be hypocritical, and as I am a fallible human, my judgement could be wrong. But for God it's not hypocritical, and he has the facts to make a perfect judgement.
But then, is it OK in your view for me to die for being sinful too? You don't feel there may be anything wrong with that line of thinking?
Yes. And it would be right for me to die for being sinful. The fact that we can escape that penalty is a manifestation of God's justice. He must give the penalty, in order to fulfil his just nature. But he offers to take the penalty on himself instead of us, in order to fulfil his merciful nature.
But it is not possible to fulfill all rules without breaking those of the society we live in.
I can't think of any rules that would violate the laws of my society - most of the laws the Bible gives are to do with *not* doing things. Our legal system generally doesn't care about inaction - except in cases of negligence. If you're talking about the punishments God lists, then bear in mind that God is telling
The laws that are no longer valid seem a bit arbitrary. What changed to make them obsolete? What purpose did they have in the first place? (two types of plants in a field?)
I'm not sure - I know nothing about agriculture. I know some of the other laws did have a purpose, so I assume this one would too. What changed is Jesus' coming. The whole bit in the Old Testament about being "clean and unclean" was symbolic of the Israelites, as the people of God, being different from the nations around them. With Jesus' coming, the opportunity to be a part of God's family was extended to the nations - so there's no need to stay separate from them, etc.
How just can God's actions be just if the actions of two people can condemn an entire species? How can children be held accountable for the actions of their parents; parents seperated by at least 6000 generations?
Ok, I'll try analogy again. Think of it as a war. Adam and Eve declared war on God. All their descendants were born on that side of the war. Just like all those people that were born in Russia a few decades ago. They were automatically part of Russia, part of the enemy of the United States. Because of the actions of the people ruling them, and because their parents were Russian.
If God can be completely understood, in every way, then God is not supernatural. Where can I go to get a literal description of God's internal workings, as unambiguous and complete as the source code for the Linux kernel?
You can't. The Bible gives us all the knowledge we need to know about God, but it doesn't tell us everything. Some there's no point to know, and some we probably wouldn't be able to grasp. Also, my definition of "supernatural" is not "inexplicable", but of something outside our universe. Because it is outside our universe, it is not bound by the natural laws that are in place in our uiverse. "supernatural" -> "outside nature".
That's nice; you've equated opposing positions with close-mindedness. Without actual support.
Not opposing positions - just the people that say "there is no evidence". There's plenty of evidence. Now if you acknowledge there is some evidence, but don't believe it, or don't accept it, that's a different story
Homosexuality isn't a choice. If someone believes that what they are (homosexual) is to be hated (since it's a sin), but they can't change it, that person will hate himself.
Now whose making an assertion without proof? Where is your evidence that homosexuality is not a personal choice? I believe it is a choice. But even if there is a genetic disposition to homosexuality, that doesn't mean it can't be sinful. I know people, who, by their backgrounds, have been predisposed towards drinking and violence. Most of them don't just say "it's out of my hands, might as well let it rule my life". They exercise self-control. In much the same way, I might say, a heterosexual with a tendancy to sleep around should exercise self-control. Much too big a deal is made out of homosexuality, IMO. Yes, it's a sin. But so is having an affair, or stealing, or bearing false witness. But there's not so much ranting against those as there is against homosexuality.
Not just some generic 'some people will go to hell' but God must know exactly which people will go, what sins committed, and when, before it all happens. Every detial. Since God does not do things by accident, God must have sent all those people deliberately to hell. God must have chosen exactly which people, chosen which sins they were to commit, and when they were to commit them.
No. God knew who would ask for repentance and who wouldn't, but he didn't make that choice for them. What you are saying, is that if God knows in advance what somebody will do, then God is making that person do it. In essence, "Can there be foreknowledge without predestination?". That's a philosophical question rather than a theological one, and I know at least one fat book that's been written on the subject. People are still arguing over it. My perspective is, if God gives you a choice, it is your choice, and the consequences are your responsibility, despite the fact that God knew what you were going to do beforehand.
Are you saying that the ten commandments aren't completely literal? I always thought they were meant to be taken literally and absolutely.
No, they're literal. They talk about what sin is. The laws that can be ignored after Jesus are the ones that talk about ceremonial cleanliness - laws about food, laws about planting two types of plants in a field, laws about wearing certain types of clothes.
So God is a black box that cannot be understood? How can I trust something that cannot be understood? Science can, and has been, providing exact explinations for everything.
I'm not saying God cannot be understood. I'm saying that divine judgement is God's business, not mine. I shouldn't start making decisions about who God should send to hell and who not. I'm not equipped to make those judgements. He is.
Are you saying that the Bible is being taken out of context? Shouldn't a perfect book provide any context necessary to understand it correctly, at least for its design life?
No, I'm not really saying its being taken out of context. I'm saying that, in parts, it doesn't attempt to "prove itself" because it's operating on the assumption that the people who are reading already believe. Just like an aeroplane manual wouldn't attempt to prove the laws of aerodynamics and demonstrate that heavier-than-air flying machines really were possible, the Old Testament doesn't attempt to prove the existance of God, because it's talking to people who already believe. The New Testament, because it's the start of an evangelistic (spreading the message) religion, does.
Is being a child a special circumstance, or not? When did those Egyptian infants have an oppurtunity to sin?
Firstly, you don't have to be that old to start doing things wrong. Secondly, after Adam, all people were born sinful. Before Adam sinned, the default setting for humans was "following God". After Adam sinned, the default setting was switched to "rebelling against God".
If God has to specifically open their eyes, then it isn't the person's choice until that happens.
People could choose to open their eyes and see themselves. But the fact is, we don't. We're stubborn and set in our ways.
And what do you beleve is the cause of homosexuality? How would you propose it be better 'treated'?
The cause of homosexuality (and every other sin, for that matter) is disobedience to God. That is the definition of sin. Outlawing homosexuality isn't going to get one homosexual into heaven. It's just going to make them complain about tyrannical Christians. The only way you're going to get a homosexual into heaven, is to show them the word of God.
Conclusion: People go to hell because God deliberately put them there (indirectly).
Yes, if you want to put it that way. God set up the circumstances that he knew would end up with some people in hell. However, those same circumstances gave man free will. God could not have given man free will without giving him the opportunity to rebel and go to hell.
Well, if they created those laws, why wouldn'y they? My "proof" of the presence of a higher being would be existence itself. I have yet to find a scientific explanation for the existence of reality. Science is fundamentally inequipped to deal with such a question, IMO. Science deals with chains of cause and effect. It cannot come up with a "first cause". The only scientific explanation is that the universe just always has existed - a claim which is just as impervious to disproving as Christian claims.
And you think he was giving the perfect example of a forgiving and kind spirit when he summoned his god to kill people?
I'm assuming the "he" in this is Elisha? Well firstly, man doesn't "summon" God. The word "summon" implies he has some sort of control over God. That's not how it works. And no, I'd say he was giving the perfect example of a just god.
So in your view it was OK for them to die because of the choice of their leader who was not even democratically elected.
It was OK for them to die because they were sinful.
If you accept that rule, you must also accept "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."
And I would agree with that rule. As long as you have a sufficiently strict definition of "curse" - not someone saying "Gee, my Mum sucks sometimes". I might disagree with the punishment - in our current society, we have an infrastructure that opens up other alternatives for punishment that the Jews at the time just didn't have. I might have to think on that one a bit more.
The question is: assuming the laws in the bible are the only right ones, how would they apply to believers today? Is the current legal system blasphemous to higher forces for not imposing capital punishment?
Firstly, the rules given to Christians aren't any particular problem of the legal system. The rules given to God's people only apply to God's people, the same way American law only applies to Americans. The answer to the second question is a bit complicated. The purpose of the law given in the Old Testament was three-fold (at least three, maybe more I can't think of).
With the coming of Jesus in the New Testament, the application of the law changes. Jesus says "I did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill the law". The fulfillment means that some aspects of the law are no longer applicable - they've served their purpose. As a general guide, look through the Old Testament. The ones that mention ceremonial "cleanliness" and "uncleanliness" are the ones that are fulfilled, because a Jesus makes all who believe in him "clean". Anything that talks about sin is still going. Because sin won't be dealt with until Jesus comes back for the second time.
You're saying it's (part of) his job to kill non-believers? Exactly how am I supposed to interpret that statement?
Every unbeliever dies. So does every believer for that matter. How, when and why that happens is God's business, not mine, except in specific instances.
Perhaps he should have more self-esteem then and get out more and meet other people.
What does self-esteem have to do with letting people who renegge on their promises get away with it? I'd like to see a judge pass down that judgement - "Request for compensation is denied, because the plaintiff has low self-esteem".
That argument is indeed used a lot when people commen
Don't get so defensive - it's a logical enough assumption. As people get given more authority, they are exposed to more scrutiny, and more security checks. Also, as their paycheque rises, it will take more and more money to bribe them. It will always be easier to bribe a private than a general, because a) There are a lot more privates than generals and b) Nobody pays as much attention to privates than they do generals. It's statistical, it's got nothing to do with relative morals throughout the ranks.
I pretty much say the thing in one of the other posts I made.
"There are some things that God cannot do. That's not because he isn't omnipotent, it's because they are logically impossible. God cannot create a square circle, because the two terms exclude each other. God cannot create a world with free will without creating a world that has the possibility of sin, because the two are mutually exclusive. If a person does not have the ability to sin, they do not have free will"
But if they listen in on your call, that means they hearing what the person on the other line says as well. What compensation do they get for losing their privacy? Will they even know that whenever you call them, every word they say is being recorded for market analysis? The same with GMail - it's not just the users of it whose mail gets analyzed - it's anyone in communication with them. This is only compounded by the problem of forwarding mail from a non-GMail address to a GMail address - then you don't even know your mail is being archived.
Perhaps you can give reference to yours and I will give you some of mine :-)
:) They didn't kill them because they mis-pronounced sibboleth, they killed them because they were the enemy force in a war. The Ephraimites couldn't pronounce the words properly - the same way English speakers (well, me, anyway) can't do those glottal stops particularly well. They used their accent as proof of their identity, when they tried to sneak through the borders.
Bear in mind as I answer these what I said before about all mankind being evil. Everyone has sinned, and therefore deserves death. The fact that we're not all dead is representative of God's grace - he wants to give us as much time as possible to repent and avoid punishment. But the fact remains that as sinners, we deserve death.
Capital punishment for insulting someone
Capital punishment for insulting God's messenger and, by implication, God himself.
Killing scores of totally innocent children and babies
Well, the first-born of Egypt weren't all children. If they were fifty years old, but still the first-born of their parents, they would have died too. But yes, children would have died. The state of "natural innocence" in a child isn't a view the Bible subscribes to. A child is just as guilty of their sin as an adult.
The LORD is a warrior?
This comes from the middle of a song the Israelites were singing, so it's pretty fair to guess they weren't being literal. What they're saying is God just kicked the butt of the Egyptian army - what a mighty warrior!
Numerous examples of capital punishment for silly reasons
Silly reasons? Even our sexually tolerant society still bunishes people who have sex with animals. Quite aside from any moral considerations is that a human who has sex with animals can act as a vector of disease to other humans. In an age without condoms, that sort of thing was a physical threat as well as a moral one. As I said, I think God gaves laws for good reasons, not just because he was arbitrary.
Capital punishment for exercising your human rights
The Bible doesn't recognize the same human rights as you do. But remember, these laws were being spoken to the Jews for the Jews. He wasn't necessarily saying "Go out and kill every non-believer" (they wouldn't have enough rocks, and that God's job anyway, eventually) - He was talking about anyone who says they worship God and then goes off and worships Baal too. The relationship between God and his people is an exclusive one - like marriage. God isn't fond of adultery.
Be careful with how you pronounce things I thought it would be that passage
We're intentionally being lied to by your god and we are chosen (from the start)
Another one you could have used is the parable of the sower, where Jesus afterwards tells his disciples that the parable wasn't intended to enlighten, but confuse the listener. The basic point is the same - unless someone seeks God, they are not going to understand his message. If someone does not love God, all they are going to see is the illusory pleasure of evil.
Matthew seems to have another idea about it than you do.
He's talking particularly to his disciples(v1) - not to unbelievers. Yes, Christians will be rewarded according to what they did when they were alive - but just because you had a crappy life here on Earth doesn't mean you get a free ticked into heaven. Which was the point I was trying to make.
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?
That's one reason why it is so emotionally intense. There are all sorts of fairly empty consolations you can say (in fact, I'd say any sort of consolation is fairly empty in those circumstances), but telling the
What about when god commands the evil? Are you omitting the Old Testament because it suits your touchy-feely idea of god? You know, the loving god who commands rape, pillage and infanticide?
Nope, I believe the old testament is just as true as the new. I can't remember anywhere God commands rape, offhand - most of the time the Jews are pretty darned punished for fraternising with the gentiles. But as for the rest, you've got to remember one of the fundamentals of Christianity is that, essentially, every human is evil by nature, and deserves to die. Including Christians and Jews. It's only because God is a god of grace as well as a god of justice that there's anyone left on the planet.
As I said in some other post on this thread, I don't think that a wrathful, angry god and a loving, gracious god are necessarily mutually exclusive. I can name a number of people I love who I've been justifiably furious with, but was willing to forgive them all the same - and I'm just a man. God's got far more reason to be irritated than I did - and yet it turns out his far more gracious than me as well.
God created a universe with the potential for sin, because it is impossible to create a world that has free will without having the potential for sin built in. God cannot do what is logically impossible - he can't create a square circle.
But the mean thing is that the servant who chooses for that freedom gets severely punished for that choice. Only one real choice is given: serve or die.
No, the person who chooses to rebel gets the consequences. If they reject God, then they spend eternity away of him, and away from the good things he provides. That is the definition of hell. Its the absence of God. People who go to hell aren't sent there because God's snooty at them for not believing - they wanted a world without God and they got it.
If *our* (as in: us humans) laws and morals are based on that deity or the teachings of that deity, shouldn't he/she/it show the superlative of qualities we greatly respect in humans today?
Definately. What aspect of God do you think is immoral?
if the system on earth is fallible and they were unjustly killed (assuming the punishment itself is just), then surely they will be compensated in an afterlife?
That isn't a part of the Christian religion as far as I know. There's no concept of karma. What happens to you after death isn't a compensation payout for all the bad stuff that happened in life - its a binary state. Your either in heaven or in hell.
What I find sort of surprising is that some people can be totally sure someone is going to heaven, yet still intensely mourn their death. It would make more sense to throw a party when someone starts living the eternal happy life.
Yes, it would. But part of the mourning is the simple fact that you're not going to see the dead person for the rest of your life. I've been to Christian funerals, and I've been to non-Christian funerals. In my experience, there is much less of a feeling of anguish and a Christian funeral. The non-Christian funerals I've been to have tended to be very emotionally intense.
The same thing that's wrong with thinking in black-and-white.
My point was that not all things require complex solutions. There's nothing wrong with simplistic answer to a simplistic problem.
If that is true, then it is odd that the legal profession is such a complicated one and that even people of exactly the same religion disagree so much with eachother about the exact interpretation. So, yes... it is "simple" to draw a line and say "don't cross it". The complexity is in defining that line and defining the appropriate punishment.
As you say. My comment was "a price must be paid for sin". That's a simple concept, and I still think it's true. Defining the crime and defining the punishment might be complex, but the basic concept is simple, and its pretty much the foundation of our judicial system.
I can't remember at any stage saying God was flabbergasted, nor can I think of any doctrine that implies such.
Quote me a passage that says God was surprised and ignorant. The passage you mentioned in Genesis doesn't quite cut it. God obviously knew they'd eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It's the equivelant of a parent confronting a naughty child with "Did you break Mummy's best vase?" They already know the answer, what they want is the child to own up. In Genesis, what we get is the man saying "The woman made me do it" and the woman saying "The snake made me do it". The very first reaction to sin is trying to pass the blame.
All it is, is following the self-centered and narcissistic tendencies of someone who supposedly lived 2000 years ago and claimed that no salvation could take place outside of him and that nonbelievers will the cast in lakes of fire.
Yup. The thing is, is that if Jesus really *was* God, then the self-centred narcissism you speak of was really just the truth. It all comes down to the question: "Was Jesus really who he said he was?"
Also: how is it possible that the knowledge of good & evil came from something created by an entity and yet that entity is claimed to have no actual knowledge of what he created... ?
God knows evil; of
I went and reread some of the articles on that particular experiment, and if you are right, then it seems these articles are wrong (not unknown in reporting a highly technical field, but one of the is the Quantum Optics Group press release).
That press release says "the objects transported are extremely small particles like electrons and photons". That sounds like physical teleportation, not teleportation of an abstract (like information).
Another article quotes the lead scientist: "What we have demonstrated here is that we can take billions of photons, destroy them simultaneously, and then recreate them in another place," Dr Lam says. (BBC).
That sounds a lot like teleportation to me. Also, if the beam is destroyed and an existing beam is modified to become a replica of the first, what happens to the energy in the first beam? I understood "destroyed" to mean gone, not transformed into another type of energy. If one beam is destroyed (not transformed), and another not created, isn't that a net loss of energy?
So you are claiming that this all-powerful God was incapable to guess this nature or predict that this might in fact happen or that if he put the equivalent of a candy jar close to them, statistics would indicate that they would - at some point - eat from it?
No, Im saying he knew what would happen. But he also would have known that if he took away all opportunity for man to sin, then there would be now free will. Having a servant who is unaware of the concept of freedom is now great thing. Having a servant who knows what freedom is, and chooses to serve anyway is something else.
I think you'll find that capital punishment is seen as barbaric in many parts of the civilized world. Should we be worried when we as mortals are more humane than the "god" some people claim made us?
"Humane" is a term that has little to do with justice. The advantage God has over human legal systems is that God is infallible, which is probably the main argument I hear against the death penalty (and, incidentally, why I oppose it).
No, it doesn't. That explanation is simplistic.
What's wrong with simplistic? It's the basis of all moral and legal codes. Here's the line. Step over it, and you'll be punished. It's not a situation that requires a complex resolution.
The real paradox is how your "god" can be all-powerful and all-knowing, yet be flabbergasted when his designs work exactly as he designed them?
I can't remember at any stage saying God was flabbergasted, nor can I think of any doctrine that implies such. "Disproving" things the other side in a debate never believed in the first place is called making a strawman argument. It's not helpful to either party.
But as is so often seen: those people think that that is the ONLY thing that works for anybody and even go so far as to claim that good morals cannot exist outside the scope of their own "god" or their own thinking.
Yes, and I would be one of them. If people don't acknowledge their sinfulness, and turn to God for salvation, then they will be seperated from him for eternity. That's hell. That's not pettyness or meanness, that's simply giving people what they want. As for claiming good morals cannot exist outside the scope of Christianity - I'm not sure exactly what you mean. There certainly can be people who do good things and behave morally without subscribing to Christianity. But they're still going to hell. God's standard is perfection, and nobody can reach that without God's help. All Christianity is, really, is asking for that help.
Interestingly (paradoxically to you perhaps), they rarely teach the merits of their views by example.
I would have said "sadly". There are really two kinds of people like that: people who aren't really Christians, and give believers a bad name through their behaviour, and real Christians who do fall down and make mistakes. It's generally impossible for us to tell the difference between the two. The Bible says the difference is repentance and recompense. If someone's willing to admit they were wrong, stop doing it, and do what they can to correct the problem they created, that's a good sign. I'd also say that one sin stands out a lot more than a life of holiness. You saying that Christians "rarely teach the merits of their views by example" is probably not the result of any statistics, but simply the fact that a Christian being bad is news, but a Christian being good isn't.
Feel free to keep replying, but I won't write back until tonight. I've got work to do, and I really can't afford to spend too much more time on slashdot.
What impossible premise? Convince me it's garbage, and I'll reject it. I have evaluated its truth value, and I find it sufficient.
You're forgetting the best way for an idea to propagate itself - be the truth. Before dismissing Christianity as a meme that should be filtered out by an immune system, demonstrate how it is false.
Feel free to keep replying, but I won't write back until tonight. I've got work to do, and I really can't afford to spend too much more time on slashdot.
Maybe you should look up the mechanism described before you denigrate it as "silly". I wrote in some other post to some other Anonymous Coward today about precisely that paradox - being perfectly just and perfectly merciful.
The punishment for sin is death. God cannot ignore that, because he is just. But he is also perfectly merciful. What does he do? He takes the penalty for sin on himself (maintaing justice) and saves those who truly repent (maintain mercy). God has the distinct advantage over our legal system in that he actualy can tell if someone has really changed their ways.
Feel free to keep replying, but I won't write back until tonight. I've got work to do, and I really can't afford to spend too much more time on slashdot.