Athiest

[GreenEarthAl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDSogacWfN0

[HAL 9000]

I did not know Einstein was an athiest. My understanding that was that his objection to quantum mechanics was based, at leastin part, on religious grounds.

[cosmo105]

^i know he's quoted in Carl Sagan's Billions and Billions to be saying something along the lines of leaving thoughts about god to "feeble minds" and such...

[greedygretchen]

I read this in a friend's blog, sorry but here goes:

Who Created Evil?
As you read this, I challenge you to really let it's meaning sink in. This eloquently answers one of the profound questions of life. Did God Create Evil? The university professor challenged his students with this question: "Did God create everything that exists?" A student bravely replied "Yes, he did!" "God created everything?" the professor asked. "Yes sir," the student replied. The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then God is evil." The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth. Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?" "Of course," replied the professor. The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?" The professor replied "Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question. The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body, or matter, have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat.The student continued. "Professor, does darkness exist?" The professor responded, "Of course it does." The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light, we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present." Finally the young man asked the professor. "Sir, does evil exist?" Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil." To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light." The professor sat down. The young man's name --- Albert Einstein

************************************************** **************

And people really believe this ridiculous fantasy. :(

[Pres Zount]

The video has been removed by user


Einstein was a socialist, so of course he was an atheist.

[alexandra]

"Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
motherfucking WORD.

[catatonic]

The founding father's were atheists. Joseph Smith was atheist. Many Israelis are atheist.

[alexandra]

when you're close to death, we'll see how much of an "athiest" you are.

[catatonic]

All these athiests, myself included, take the afterlife as seriously as they can.

[catatonic]

alright.

[Pres Zount]

when you're close to death, we'll see how much of an "athiest" you are.
Are you saying I should hedge my bets and put faith in god just before I die??

Just in case?

That's a good idea. I can't lose, either way.

[Funkaloyd]

when you're close to death, we'll see how much of an "athiest" you are.
You're right: I should imagine that I'll need someone to curse and blame when bullets start flying at me, or when I'm so old and sick I start pooping myself.

"Here I come, God. Here I come, you fucking rat."

[alexandra]

i thought you guys were intelligent enough to understand what i meant. oh well...

[EN[i]GMA]

when you're close to death, we'll see how much of an "athiest" you are.

And when you're rotting in the ground, we'll see how much of a 'theist' you are.

Deal?

[Funkaloyd]

Go to this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/search.php?searchid=1194555&pp=40) page, and check out the "Abe's Atheventures" threads, starting with episode 1 on the second search page. Really great non-fiction.

You'll have to create an account, but it's worth it.

[racer5.0stang]

How can someone say that they are an athiest when they themselves cannot prove nor disprove the existance of God? When in reality, it is nothing more than a belief or doctorine that has been created by man.

Nothing more than someone choosing not to take responsibility for their actions.

If there is no God than there is no reason to live a moral life. But if the is in fact a God, then there are requirements and consequences for my actions.

I guess because man nor science cannot disprove or prove God then obviously there is no God. That is obviously logical.

[QueenAdrock]

It's called preference. If something cannot be proven, some people believe it can't exist. If something cannot be DISproven, some people believe it does exist. It's all where your faith lay, and it's stupid to say one way of thinking is right over the other way, because they're BOTH THE SAME REASONING.

I live a moral life not because I believe in god or chose not to, but because it gives me self-satisfaction. I enjoy helping out other people and leading a good life because it in turn makes me feel good about myself. Not everyone plays by the rules just out of fear of god, you know. With that reasoning, you'd think the atheists would go out and rob and rape a whole lot more. You don't see it happening. They're good people because it's what they WANT to do.

[SobaViolence]

I don't think God even pays attention to most of us...people are fucking crazy.

[catatonic]

Ha ha! Joseph Liebermann is on TV painting the Democrat opponent (who was conservative Republican up to last year) a flip flopper with every response. It's really great to hear a conservative Republican giving all the major Democrat talking points with no depth.

He would have destroyed Bush IMSO (Liebermann).

Anyway whatever. I'll let the lifelong atheists represent atheism. As far as the English dictionary definition of God is concerned, it's completely unintelligible and unworkable.

[Funkaloyd]

How can someone say that they are an athiest when they themselves cannot prove nor disprove the existance of God?
The Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spagetti Monster are sitting next to me as I type this. Do you believe me?

Nothing more than someone choosing not to take responsibility for their actions.
If there is no God than there is no reason to live a moral life. But if the is in fact a God, then there are requirements and consequences for my actions.
The only thing that stops you from stealing, raping and killing is the threat of punishment? And this "heaven" place is filled with people like you?!

Besides, Christianity doesn't offer much incentive to live a moral life. Depending on your denomination, all you have to do is have faith and/or confess your sins before you die. Shit, Hitler could be in heaven for all you know. There are a bunch of better religions out there, going by your logic.

[Funkaloyd]

Also, are you planning on getting back to me in that other thread?

[EN[i]GMA]

How can someone say that they are an athiest when they themselves cannot prove nor disprove the existance of God?

How can you prove yourself a 'teapot atheist' when you cannot disprove the existence of a teapot orbiting the sun, on the opposite side of earth?

I presume then, that you believe in this teapot as ardently as you believe in your God?

Or are you a teapot atheist?

When in reality, it is nothing more than a belief or doctorine that has been created by man.

It's actually the lack of a man-made doctrine.

For proof: Tell me, what position on God's existence would not be 'man made'?


Nothing more than someone choosing not to take responsibility for their actions.

Rich coming from someone who's religion puts forth the doctrine that no matter what your sins, all you have to do is repent and you get into heaven.

If your idea of 'taking responsibility' is commiting a horrific sin like murder then getting off scot free while another person who lived a virtuous life, but was an atheist, goes to hell, then you clearly aren't think this through properly, a probable proposition.


If there is no God than there is no reason to live a moral life.

Care to connect this seemingly disparate assertions for me, using logic?

But if the is in fact a God, then there are requirements and consequences for my actions.

The second does not follow from the first.

God could exist and still ordain no laws, or he could ordain laws that make murder good.

Then you would be 'required' to murder.


I guess because man nor science cannot disprove or prove God then obviously there is no God. That is obviously logical.

It obviously is.

Positing the existence of something we have no evidence of is illogical.

Positing the non-existence of something we have no evidence of is perfectly logically valid, given the current information.

[racer5.0stang]

It's called preference.

Or maybe ignorance. If I were blind and fell into a hole, would I prefer to fall into the hole or am I ignorant of it's existance. In either case, the hole still exists regardless of me seeing it or not.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spagetti Monster are sitting next to me as I type this. Do you believe me?

Of course.

The only thing that stops you from stealing, raping and killing is the threat of punishment?

No the morals that we are born with tell us otherwise. The law is what sets the boundaries for us to live.

Depending on your denomination, all you have to do is have faith and/or confess your sins before you die.

No, you must put your faith in Jesus Christ that he is the Son of God and that he lived and died on the cross for OUR sins and rose on the third day and repent of your sins. That is how one receives eternal salvation.

Shit, Hitler could be in heaven for all you know.

That is true. We place certain values on sin. For example, killing someone or a group of people is alot worse than stealing candy. God sees them as equal.

There are a bunch of better religions out there, going by your logic.

Religion will get you nowhere. A relationship with Jesus Christ will get you eternal life. The truth is always straight and narrow, but a lie will be crooked and broad.

Or are you a teapot atheist?

Sure, unless there is a flying saucer.

It's actually the lack of a man-made doctrine.

No, Atheism is man made. How could a non existant God say that He does not exist?

Tell me, what position on God's existence would not be 'man made'?

His entire existance, if in fact you are refering to the God of the Bible.

Rich coming from someone who's religion puts forth the doctrine that no matter what your sins, all you have to do is repent and you get into heaven.

As I said above, you must put your faith in Jesus Christ. He is the only way to Heaven. Just repenting of your sins doesn't cut it.

If your idea of 'taking responsibility' is commiting a horrific sin like murder then getting off scot free while another person who lived a virtuous life, but was an atheist, goes to hell, then you clearly aren't think this through properly, a probable proposition.

Just because someone is a Christian doesn't make them perfect just forgiven. Both have sinned (Christian and Athiest), but the Christian has put his/her faith in Christ and has been forgiven of all sin.

[Ace42X]

Or maybe ignorance.

Funny you should bring that up, being without a doubt the stupidest person to post here next to GMSisko.

No, you must put your faith in Jesus Christ that he is the Son of God and that he lived and died on the cross for OUR sins and rose on the third day and repent of your sins. That is how one receives eternal salvation.

Allegedly; you have yet to offer a shred of proof for this. Infact, you have only ever been able to use your personal preference as a reason for accepting your faith as true, and as you are a fucking pea-brained dolt, that is hardly a stirling recommendation.

[drizl]

i like to think that all things are geared towards evolution...and that we can either choose to evolve or de-evolve. creation...who knows what happened. can it be known? i think some people have witnessed it, some yogis and meditative masters. why have they seen it? because they have merged with the oneness that underlies all existence. it is the heart of all religions, and its quantum mechanics...wave theory and the atman.
i think we evolve towards greater levels of conscious awareness which then gives us greater creativity and more responsibility. for example the earth organism...a very conscious, powerful, responsible and creative energetic force! and the sun, an even greater, more responsible conscious-creative power! and the galaxy! but in the end, it is all intertwined and we are all the same...closing the loop.
i dont know, baffeling.

BUT MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE: i think that arguing over god is ridiculous.

[hitmonlee]

born and bred atheist (y)

Or maybe ignorance. If I were blind and fell into a hole, would I prefer to fall into the hole or am I ignorant of it's existance. In either case, the hole still exists regardless of me seeing it or not.


but we could still prove to you the hole is there. proof=you falling into it.

terrible analogy there.

[QueenAdrock]

Or maybe ignorance. If I were blind and fell into a hole, would I prefer to fall into the hole or am I ignorant of it's existance. In either case, the hole still exists regardless of me seeing it or not.

That's ridiculous reasoning. I love when people tell me that there's a heaven whether I believe it or not. Yeah, like they KNOW for sure and aren't going on blind faith, right? You've actually seen heaven?

Please.

And what if you were blind and fell into a patch of grass because there was no hole? I guess that doesn't factor into the equation because that's an impossibility?

I understand you have faith, but you CANNOT say for sure whether there is heaven, afterlife, god, or any of that. YOU BELIEVE THERE IS. Tell me, when you pray, does god physically speak to you and answer you, word-for-word? Have you taken a Dante-esque journey into hell and seen what happens? Then taken a trip to heaven and seen that? No? No hard proof? Well, then it may NOT exist.

Simply put, it's your OPINION that heaven exists. And don't quote scripture, because we're not getting into the factual correctness of ANY of that.

[yeahwho]

racer5.0stang is back on duty. cool. it's a gas gas gas!

[yeahwho]

Repenting made easy with the iGod (http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html).

Grapple your apple.

[D_Raay]

The Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spagetti Monster are sitting next to me as I type this. Do you believe me?


The only thing that stops you from stealing, raping and killing is the threat of punishment? And this "heaven" place is filled with people like you?!

Besides, Christianity doesn't offer much incentive to live a moral life. Depending on your denomination, all you have to do is have faith and/or confess your sins before you die. Shit, Hitler could be in heaven for all you know. There are a bunch of better religions out there, going by your logic.
Hey what about Goblins? Or Zombies, shit I haven't seen one of them in years.:rolleyes:

[Bob]

are you kidding?

How can someone say that they are an athiest when they themselves cannot prove nor disprove the existance of God? When in reality, it is nothing more than a belief or doctorine that has been created by man.

now i do agree that atheism is a matter of faith, and i do undestand that few atheists see it that way. i'm an agnostic, i don't think man can ever know for sure whether or not god exists, much less anything specific about god's true nature. but it sounds strange, a man of faith using THAT as an argument against believing in something. turn it around, how can you say you're a christian when you can't prove or disprove existence of god? proof has no place in matters of faith.

Nothing more than someone choosing not to take responsibility for their actions.

how can you say this...

If there is no God than there is no reason to live a moral life. But if the is in fact a God, then there are requirements and consequences for my actions.

...followed immediately by this. do you read what you type? if fear of god is the only thing governing your behavior, i don't get how you can claim to take responsibility for your own actions. that's messed up. you're not taking any responsibility for your actions at all, you're barely even considering them, you're just doing what you're told.

no reason to live a moral life? where do you get that? of course there's reason to live a moral life. you don't need god to behave well. there are more reasons to govern your own behavior than "because i've been told to". live well for its own sake. we, as a society, behave morally (ideally, anyway) in order to create a better society as a whole. you don't need a god for that. you don't even really need a government for that (well, you shouldn't).

I guess because man nor science cannot disprove or prove God then obviously there is no God. That is obviously logical.

i got a C in my formal logic class and even i can see the flaw there. i forget what it's called, but it's one of those ad-something fallacies, i think.

i don't flip out much, but man, that's one of the more annoying things i've ever read on a message board. responsibility. pah.

[Bob]

when you're close to death, we'll see how much of an "athiest" you are.

which version of god should i believe in? he'd be pissed if i picked the wrong one, i'd bet. if he's up there at all. i don't really know. is there some kind of universal coverage deathbed repentance, just to be safe? it just kind of sounds like rolling the dice, to me

[QueenAdrock]

Just make sure that you offer whoever it is that's up there a plate of cookies on your deathbed, because I'm pretty sure all gods can agree that your soul will be saved or go to nirvana or whatever with the offering of super-double-chocolate-fudge-chunk cookies. (y)

[Bob]

you may think you're the athiest but i'm athier

[racer5.0stang]

Funny you should bring that up, being without a doubt the stupidest person to post here next to GMSisko.

I am sure glad that Ace has graced us with his humble yet condescending opinion.

Allegedly; you have yet to offer a shred of proof for this. Infact, you have only ever been able to use your personal preference as a reason for accepting your faith as true, and as you are a fucking pea-brained dolt, that is hardly a stirling recommendation.

Nor have you offered any proof that God does not exist. Only your simple opinion that some of your e-friends have duped you into believing. Sad really.

i like to think

That is the whole problem with your post.

how can you say this...

If you are agnostic, that is saying that I choose to ride the fence and not make a decision on what I believe or don't believe.

if fear of god is the only thing governing your behavior, i don't get how you can claim to take responsibility for your own actions.

I didn't say that God is the ONLY thing governing my behavior, but my faith in Him changes my behavior and/or decisions that I make.

[kaiser soze]

God is an athiest

[Ace42X]

I am sure glad that Ace has graced us with his humble yet condescending opinion.

Condescending?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condescending

"To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself."

If was being condescending, I'd be talking babyishly to you, not calling you stupid. Me calling you stupid isn't condescending, and if you were not a fucking moron, you'd know that.

Nor have you offered any proof that God does not exist. Only your simple opinion that some of your e-friends have duped you into believing. Sad really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_Proof

I think you'll find that, as you are making the prima facie claim that God exists, and we are, on the whole, denying that you have any proof, rather than denying that your claim might be true, the burden of proof is on you.

"In jurisprudence, the burden of proof is the concept of holding one party to a dispute or one side of a debate responsible for producing a prima facie case. If this party fails to produce a valid case, the decision will go against them, without requiring any further evidence or discussion."

You can provide no prima facie case, and have not done so, ergo your point is moot.

There is literally no case to answer, if you cannot substantiate your claims, any evidence (or proof) needed to indicate the contrary is IRRELEVANT.

It is very very simple logic, and if you weren't ignorant, you'd know this.

That is the whole problem with your post.

Yes, I am sure you find "thinking" to be very problematic when you try to justify your igorant belief structure.

If you are agnostic, that is saying that I choose to ride the fence and not make a decision on what I believe or don't believe.

Not exactly. He said what agnosticism means, both literally and to him. Why do you have to try simplify a rather sophisticated school of thought into something it isn't? Oh, that's right, because you are a fucking idiot whose juvenile beliefs don't hold up to any sort of intellectual scrutiny.

I didn't say that God is the ONLY thing governing my behavior, but my faith in Him changes my behavior and/or decisions that I make.

Bullshit. We've seen your pontificating on the board, your selective interpretation of scripture, your complete lack of understanding of the context of the KJA bible. You, consciously or not, have selected a belief pattern which suits you. You change your beliefs to suit your behaviour, not the other way around, as can be seen by your pathetic flip-flopping throughout the forum.

[Funkaloyd]

Nor have you offered any proof that God does not exist. Only your simple opinion that some of your e-friends have duped you into believing. Sad really.
Dr. Greg Hiezerfaussen came up with indisputable, mathematical proof that no gods exist.

[Waus]

BUT MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE: i think that arguing over god is ridiculous.

I agree with that more than anything. Actions, showing people what you believe is more important than arguing. If you hold debates about the existence of God or the importance of Jesus but do not love your brother, then what's the point?

[HAL 9000]

Michio Kaku, in his book 'Hyperspace' has an interesting discussion on God. He distinguishes between the God of miracles and the God of symmetry and mathematics.

The point being that, clearly the wizard gods who appear as the central figure in most religions are a construct of the human mind and are fictional. They are all utterly illogical and absurd. However, within the context of what is known about the universe, it doesn’t seem totally implausible that something external has had a hand in the formation f our universe.

I don’t want to come across as arguing that god exists for I sit firmly on the atheist side of the argument. I am pretty sure that there is no god in the way that most people think of a god, ie as a being with an intelligence that influences day to day events. Its more a recognition that what we know as 'the universe' might well be part of a bigger structure and the critical conditions within our universe (ie the fundamental constants, c and the strength of the 4 fundamental forces) might be that way because of our universes role in some bigger system.

This system would be what gives our reality the order that allows life, life may well be an externality of that system, but in a sense I think of this as the concept of a 'god of order'.

I hope that made sense.

[EN[i]GMA]

I've thought about that, but I've decided that such a being wouldn't be a 'God' at all, but would merely be a natural mechanism that is simply beyond our understanding, for the time being at least.

Even granting that some 'being of order' exists, the designation of 'God' is, I think, incorrect. The way order is propogated might seem 'Godly', but again, it could easily be a natural occurence far beyond our comprehension, like storms were to the ancients.

The 'God of the gaps' may be superficially pleasing, but all it does is move the fundamental questions back a step.

Again, it's possible such a 'being' exists, certainly, but also it's unlikely (I think) and irrelevent.

[Bob]

That is the whole problem with your post.

is that a joke?



If you are agnostic, that is saying that I choose to ride the fence and not make a decision on what I believe or don't believe.

no, because what i believe is that it's impossible to know whether or not god exists, so i've decided to suspend my belief about his/her/its/their existence(s) in either direction. that's the watered down version, anyway. faith is what you have in the absence of proof, and i don't have any of either.



I didn't say that God is the ONLY thing governing my behavior, but my faith in Him changes my behavior and/or decisions that I make.

still, what bothers me is that you're equating "taking responsibility for your actions" with "unconditionally obeying authority". i'm no anarchist, but that's not what responsibility means to me.

[Bob]

GMA']

Even granting that some 'being of order' exists, the designation of 'God' is, I think, incorrect. The way order is propogated might seem 'Godly', but again, it could easily be a natural occurence far beyond our comprehension, like storms were to the ancients.

yeah, that's how i feel about it too (i only really casually think about it, though, i haven't done any research). it all appears fairly divinely ordered, but chalking it up to divinity would be kind of a step backwards, wouldn't it? if we did that, it would be easy to say "isn't it miraculous?" and leave it at that, and that's no good.

and if it's divinely ordered, is it divinely ordered for a reason, towards a goal? is there a reason that things fall at a rate of 9.8m/s^2 due to gravity (other than...whatever the scientific explanation for that is, i'm no physicist)? it would seem unusual for gods to do things for no reason. but i'm no god, i don't know how they work.

[Qdrop]

FIRST RULE OF BBMB GEN. POL. : NEVER ARGUE WITH RACER ABOUT RELIGION.

it's like arguing mathmatics with your dog.

[Bob]

I read this in a friend's blog, sorry but here goes:

Who Created Evil?
As you read this, I challenge you to really let it's meaning sink in. This eloquently answers one of the profound questions of life. Did God Create Evil? The university professor challenged his students with this question: "Did God create everything that exists?" A student bravely replied "Yes, he did!" "God created everything?" the professor asked. "Yes sir," the student replied. The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are, then God is evil." The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth. Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?" "Of course," replied the professor. The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?" The professor replied "Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question. The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body, or matter, have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (- 460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat.The student continued. "Professor, does darkness exist?" The professor responded, "Of course it does." The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light, we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present." Finally the young man asked the professor. "Sir, does evil exist?" Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil." To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light." The professor sat down. The young man's name --- Albert Einstein

************************************************** **************

And people really believe this ridiculous fantasy. :(


oh yeah

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

(not done maliciously, mind you)

edit: jesus, some vicious stories on here

Navy SEALs are always taught

1) Keep your priorities in order and
2) Know when to act without hesitation.

A Navy SEAL was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist and a member of the ACLU. One day he shocked the class when he came in, looked to the ceiling, and flatly stated, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes."

The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am God. I'm still waiting."

It got down to the last couple of minutes when the SEAL got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold. The SEAL went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence.

The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the SEAL and asked, "What the hell is the matter with you? Why did you do that?"

The SEAL calmly replied, "God was too busy today protecting America's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid shit and act like an asshole. So He sent me."


BARF

[abcdefz]

edit: jesus, some vicious stories on here

Navy SEALs are always taught

1) Keep your priorities in order and
2) Know when to act without hesitation.

A Navy SEAL was attending some college courses between assignments. He had completed missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the courses had a professor who was an avowed atheist and a member of the ACLU. One day he shocked the class when he came in, looked to the ceiling, and flatly stated, "God, if you are real, then I want you to knock me off this platform. I'll give you exactly 15 minutes."

The lecture room fell silent. You could hear a pin drop. Ten minutes went by and the professor proclaimed, "Here I am God. I'm still waiting."

It got down to the last couple of minutes when the SEAL got out of his chair, went up to the professor, and cold-cocked him; knocking him off the platform. The professor was out cold. The SEAL went back to his seat and sat there, silently. The other students were shocked and stunned and sat there looking on in silence.

The professor eventually came to, noticeably shaken, looked at the SEAL and asked, "What the hell is the matter with you? Why did you do that?"

The SEAL calmly replied, "God was too busy today protecting America's soldiers who are protecting your right to say stupid shit and act like an asshole. So He sent me."


BARF




Yeah -- that's the Christian spirit, by golly. :rolleyes:

Personally, I think debating about God is kind of pointless. If you believe God exists, then you know it's in his very nature to make sure that belief is a matter of faith rather than the sciences. Faith in the unseen is a huge, huge issue with God; he doesn't want to strongarm people into loving him.

that being said, I was actually won over by reading a classic argument: C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. It's about as step-by-step logical and persuasive argument as you can find. Some folks think John Stott's Basic Christianity is better, but I don't think so.

As someone who was an open-minded athiest willing to give faith a shot, Lewis' book won me over, very, very reluctantly. I still have serious problems with living out what I believe, but I am a believer and nothing's been able to shake that in the least since then.

[Bob]

Yeah -- that's the Christian spirit, by golly. :rolleyes:

Personally, I think debating about God is kind of pointless. If you believe God exists, then you know it's in his very nature to make sure that belief is a matter of faith rather than the sciences. Faith in the unseen is a huge, huge issue with God; he doesn't want to strongarm people into loving him.

that being said, I was actually won over by reading a classic argument: C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. It's about as step-by-step logical and persuasive argument as you can find. Some folks think John Stott's Basic Christianity is better, but I don't think so.

As someone who was an open-minded athiest willing to give faith a shot, Lewis' book won me over, very, very reluctantly. I still have serious problems with living out what I believe, but I am a believer and nothing's been able to shake that in the least since then.

i haven't read or heard of that C.S Lewis book. it's an argument for faith? i thought lewis was an atheist. i don't know much about him, i guess.

[HAL 9000]

Yeah -- that's the Christian spirit, by golly. :rolleyes:

Personally, I think debating about God is kind of pointless. If you believe God exists, then you know it's in his very nature to make sure that belief is a matter of faith rather than the sciences. Faith in the unseen is a huge, huge issue with God; he doesn't want to strongarm people into loving him.

that being said, I was actually won over by reading a classic argument: C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. It's about as step-by-step logical and persuasive argument as you can find. Some folks think John Stott's Basic Christianity is better, but I don't think so.

As someone who was an open-minded athiest willing to give faith a shot, Lewis' book won me over, very, very reluctantly. I still have serious problems with living out what I believe, but I am a believer and nothing's been able to shake that in the least since then.


I recently read both of these books - I found Mere Christainity IMO to be flawed. In particular, many of the arguments seemed to rely on the premise that the bible is an accurate and truthful account of the life and times of Jesus. While I am not up for debating now whether it is or it isnt, it is an assumption that seems to render subsequent logical discussion rather pointless.

Another argument seemed to run that man has an inherent sense of right and wrong and this can only come from a divine source. This argument is clearly wrong as the theory of evolution (and also the game theory work of John nash) explains this just as well if not better.

Thats a bit of a digression because I am interested in the idea of 'giving faith a shot'. I can not comprehend this, I dont think I have control over what I believe or what I chose to have faith in. Its just a matter of fact. I could outwardly pretend to believe in something but deep down I would now that I was being false. It seems likely that in the case of many religious individuals, this is likely what they actually do.

But if God can see all, then merely pretending to believe is not sufficient. If I were to say to someone, cant you just have faith in the idea that I have two heads, then I would expect them to find that task impossible. I can not understand how one can say "That for no particular reason, I intend to take a position in my mind on this issue which I know to be illogical".

I dont mean to be confrontational in this line of questioning, its just an aspect of faith that I dont understand and would appreciate your view.

[EN[i]GMA]

Yeah -- that's the Christian spirit, by golly. :rolleyes:

Personally, I think debating about God is kind of pointless. If you believe God exists, then you know it's in his very nature to make sure that belief is a matter of faith rather than the sciences. Faith in the unseen is a huge, huge issue with God; he doesn't want to strongarm people into loving him.

that being said, I was actually won over by reading a classic argument: C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. It's about as step-by-step logical and persuasive argument as you can find. Some folks think John Stott's Basic Christianity is better, but I don't think so.

As someone who was an open-minded athiest willing to give faith a shot, Lewis' book won me over, very, very reluctantly. I still have serious problems with living out what I believe, but I am a believer and nothing's been able to shake that in the least since then.

A girl in my class was reading that, and told me I should read it.

A read a few pages, noted some rediculous logical errors, some patronizing garbage and said 'no thanks.'

Maybe it worked for you, but from what was supposed to be one of the best arguments for Christianity, I just found the same tired arguments.

[Bob]

i haven't read or heard of that C.S Lewis book. it's an argument for faith? i thought lewis was an atheist. i don't know much about him, i guess.

i guess i didn't know much about him. he was born a christian, then became an atheist, then became a christian again. if anyone else was curious.

[abcdefz]

i haven't read or heard of that C.S Lewis book. it's an argument for faith? i thought lewis was an atheist. i don't know much about him, i guess.




Tolkein was one of several men (nicknamed The Inklings) who wound up debating Lewis on the matter until he eventually converted.

[racer5.0stang]

Condescending?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condescending

"To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself."

If was being condescending, I'd be talking babyishly to you, not calling you stupid. Me calling you stupid isn't condescending, and if you were not a fucking moron, you'd know that.

Try choosing a real dictionary to define words you don't understand.

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary

con·de·scend
1. to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity.

I think you'll find that, as you are making the prima facie claim that God exists, and we are, on the whole, denying that you have any proof, rather than denying that your claim might be true, the burden of proof is on you.

If you will, take note that the title of this thread is Athiest, therefore the burden is on you.

Yes, I am sure you find "thinking" to be very problematic when you try to justify your igorant belief structure.

It was meant in a joking manner, like the way most people take you.

Simply put, it's your OPINION that heaven exists. And don't quote scripture, because we're not getting into the factual correctness of ANY of that.

I suppose you have found an error in scripture? Or is that your opinion?

Dr. Greg Hiezerfaussen came up with indisputable, mathematical proof that no gods exist.

Well then that settles our discussion. Would you care to expound on his "proof"?

still, what bothers me is that you're equating "taking responsibility for your actions" with "unconditionally obeying authority". i'm no anarchist, but that's not what responsibility means to me.

Who said anything a/b unconditionally obeying authority? All I'm saying is that my beliefs should reflect my actions and I have a responsibility to do so. If I believe that the Bible is true, then what it teaches should be reflected in my life. For example, the Bible says not to steal. If I believed the Bible then it would alter my actions and I SHOULDN'T steal. So by being Agnostic, there are no right or wrong actions except what society has dubbed right and wrong. Which by the way, most of our basic laws are based on the Bible.

FIRST RULE OF BBMB GEN. POL. : NEVER ARGUE WITH RACER ABOUT RELIGION.

Who's arguing. Besides what other subject is worth discussing?

It seems likely that in the case of many religious individuals, this is likely what they actually do.

This is the problem today. Many people get religious but religion can do nothing for you. I'm sure there are alot of people who attend church (forgive the term) religiously, but without a relationship with God through Jesus Christ it is in vain.The bible teaches that our most righteous acts are as filthy rags to God, but through Jesus were are made righteous.

[QueenAdrock]

I suppose you have found an error in scripture? Or is that your opinion?

Sure, there are errors in all the timelines. Such as reference to the spice trade when it had not happened until years later, references to horses when they had not been domesticated yet, and the like.

However, I was not referring to those errors. I was referring to the overall point of no one truly knowing who wrote the first five books of the bible, as well as later books. There's speculation, but simply enough: the bible was written by MAN. There are so many questions still left unanswered by the bible, to believe it is the true word of god 100% is OPINION AND FAITH. There is no way one can prove it is what god has said, period. You weren't around when the bible was written, you did not hear god telling them what to write down, you did not witness any of the stories that happened, so there is no way you can sit there and tell me that it is 100% true and that you have proof for that, since your "proof" is just your faith.

I can hold up a book that says everything that the bible said was wrong, and I received all of my information from god himself who came down and talked to me last night. Would you believe me? What's to say that MY book isn't right? Why would you believe the bible, but not my fabulous book? We both claim that god told us what to write, so what's the problem? It's all pick and choose, what you CHOOSE to believe and CHOOSE to think is the absolute truth. It's all preference. Atheist believe they have enough evidence to say that there is no god and choose that, fundamentalists believe they have enough evidence that there is a god and go that way. Either way, atheists oftentimes refer on science and theories, fundamentalists refer to the bible. Not saying either is wrong, I'm saying believing both one way or the other 100% and closing your eyes and ears to any other thought is silly.

[racer5.0stang]

However, I was not referring to those errors. I was referring to the overall point of no one truly knowing who wrote the first five books of the bible, as well as later books.

The same could be said a/b the Bill of Rights or the U.S. Constitution. Both were written by man, but who is to say that the people given credit as to writting them actually wrote them, much less existed. We were not there to witness it or those people.

Another side would be that as you said before that there are errors in timelines and the sort, but no errors have been found in the Bible. Many people have devoted their lives to studying the scriptures. My point being, there would be some error(s) found if only man, not inspired by God,to write these scriptures especially by so many and over such a large course of time.

[QueenAdrock]

The same could be said a/b the Bill of Rights or the U.S. Constitution. Both were written by man, but who is to say that the people given credit as to writting them actually wrote them, much less existed. We were not there to witness it or those people.

Another side would be that as you said before that there are errors in timelines and the sort, but no errors have been found in the Bible. Many people have devoted their lives to studying the scriptures. My point being, there would be some error(s) found if only man, not inspired by God,to write these scriptures especially by so many and over such a large course of time.

Sure, *we* may not have been there to witness them, but there is enough historical evidence and documentation to say that they were the ones to have written them, along with credible witnesses. Plus, even if the Bill of Rights/Constitution was not written by those who claimed to have written it, no harm done. Everyone can agree that they are still great guidelines for our country and would continue to follow them. Would people still continue to follow the bible if it was not the word of god? I doubt it.

And those errors of the timeline WERE in the bible. The Queen of Sheba story, for one. There was no spice trade during that time period. I would also recommend to you reading the original Hebrew bible, there are all sorts of discrepancies between that version and the later versions of the Pentateuch. It was edited by man into what it is today. Especially when it was translated from the original language into the vernacular. Don't believe me though. Go read it yourself.

[EN[i]GMA]

Who said anything a/b unconditionally obeying authority?

The Bible.

There are no conditions in which you can disobey God.

All I'm saying is that my beliefs should reflect my actions and I have a responsibility to do so. If I believe that the Bible is true, then what it teaches should be reflected in my life.

And you follow it perfectly?

For example, the Bible says not to steal. If I believed the Bible then it would alter my actions and I SHOULDN'T steal.

But Christians steal all the time.

So basically you're saying "Because the Bible says doing x is wrong, I think it's wrong and never do it, except for all those times I've disobeyed the Bible."

Real convincing.

I'm sure most thieves and burglars are 'Christians', just on the sheer proportion of Christians in this country.

A lot of good that Biblical morality did then.

But please, compare the incarceration rates of Christians and atheists if you'd like.

So by being Agnostic, there are no right or wrong actions except what society has dubbed right and wrong.

Which is the only reason anything is wrong.

All kinds of rules in the Old Testament are not followed. Do you eat shellfish, for example? Don't Catholics have a rule about meat on Friday or something? Do you follow that?

What about the rules about homosexuals? The backwards attitudes on slavery and women? Those are 'in the Bible'.

I hope you don't act as those people did.

If you give it more than a second's thought you'll realize that you basically pick and choose Biblical passages you agree with.

If one said, straight from God, hot off the presses, kill your son or something, would you do it? I mean, it has Biblical precedent; you should do it according to the book.

But I would hope you wouldn't.

This shows that morality doesn't come straight from the Bible.


Which by the way, most of our basic laws are based on the Bible.

Really? Which ones?

[Funkaloyd]

Try choosing a real dictionary to define words you don't understand.

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary

con·de·scend
1. to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity....If ever there were an example of digging the metaphorical hole deeper.

Ace said: "Funny you should bring that up, being without a doubt the stupidest person to post here next to GMSisko." How is that condescending by that definition?

Dr. Greg Hiezerfaussen came up with indisputable, mathematical proof that no gods exist.Well then that settles our discussion. Would you care to expound on his "proof"?
You can see it, but first you have to believe in it.

If I believe that the Bible is true, then what it teaches should be reflected in my life. For example, the Bible says not to steal. If I believed the Bible then it would alter my actions and I SHOULDN'T steal.
So if I asked you for $700, would you give it to me, as per Matthew 5:42?

[Ace42X]

Try choosing a real dictionary to define words you don't understand.

Are you implying dictionary.com is wrong?

con·de·scend
1. to behave as if one is conscious of descending from a superior position, rank, or dignity.

You have yet to show I am doing this. Perhaps you should choose words you understand before using them.

If you will, take note that the title of this thread is Athiest, therefore the burden is on you.

Bzzt, wrong. There being no irrefutable evidence / proof that something exists is a prima facie case that it does not exist. The inverse is not true.

"There is no evidence that proves a cockatrice exists" is a prima facie case that it does not. "You have no evidence that it that disproves the existence of a cockatrice" is not.

Are you seriously telling me you can't see the difference? It is logically impossible to "prove" the non-existence of something conclusively, that is not an argument for its existence, and trying to kid yourself that it is is jsut wishful thinking. You might as well tell us fairies, dragons, santa claus, chimeras, manticores, equilaxs and unicorns exist and sit their smugly saying "hey, you can't prove that somewhere in the infinite vastness of space for some blip in the spectrum of infinite time they haven't existed!" Well, no I can't, but that doesn't actually support your case at all.

Furthermore, the topic is "athiest" because of the clip, which is not saying "Athiesm is correct, and as such we can prove the non-existance of God" but is infact saying "Athiesm is superior to deity based religion, because the people are smarter, and they act more morally." They provide prima facie evidence for this claim within the clip. It is YOU saying "ah, that might be the case, but you are WRONG, because he DOES exist." And you who are unable to support his allegations by providing prima facie evidence.

It was meant in a joking manner, like the way most people take you.

Do you really think even a single poster here respects your ignorant opinions more than me? Are you that deluded that you do not realise how stupid you come across? Could anyone who hasn't bashed their brains out at Stang's retardedness please inform him of how worthless and ill-conceived his inconsistant ramblings come across.

I suppose you have found an error in scripture? Or is that your opinion?

Well, now you come to mention it, I did point out the inconsistancies in the gospels' accounts of the crucifixion, and as I remember, you had to make up a load of speculative bullshit to try and defend the inconsistancies, and then you pretended that despite the language pretty much implying the contrary, your additions were somehow right.

You then failed to grasp the inherant logical error of saying "well, that's the only way my beliefs can be right - and they are right - so that must be correct..." rather than the more obvious "oh my God, they tossed up... That's freaking stupid."

Never mind the fact that whenever you come across inconsistancies you can't explain, you say "oh, that's obviously parabolic" - without any proof - and yet when it is something you personally believe in "no, it's not a parable, it's the literal truth". And then you have the audacity to criticise other people "picking and choosing" what to believe in. The only redeeming factor of your hypocrisy is that it makes you contradict yourself quite regularly in an attempt to justify your patently absurd belief structure.

Well then that settles our discussion. Would you care to expound on his "proof"?

Why? You'd not understand it. You don't even understand the theory of evolution, something which only requires two eyes and a modicum of common sense to follow. The idea of you understanding sophisticated mathematical proofs is quite frankly ridiculous.

If I believe that the Bible is true, then what it teaches should be reflected in my life.

Except for the bits that you arbitrarily choose not to, or the bits that aren't in the bible you arbitrarily choose to follow, or the bits you arbitrarily choose as "parabolic."

So by being Agnostic, there are no right or wrong actions except what society has dubbed right and wrong. Which by the way, most of our basic laws are based on the Bible.

Double bullshit. Firstly, there can be absolute morality without having to rely on a fictional omniscient entity looking over your shoulder to police you. Secondly, there can be a selective personal morality, for much the same reason. It is ignorant to think there must be God for there to be a belief in "right or wrong."

Many middle eastern religions have no deification, but still believe in a greater-than-human force which metes out justice, for example. And, as the clip at the start of the thread is trying to show, according to the prison statistics, athiests (not necessarily agnostics) are actually MORE moral (or less likely to get caught) than the christian population.

And no, "our most basic laws" are not based around the bible. If you check the "legal" systems of numerous other nations who have had limited or no contact with Christianity or the bible, you'll find their prescriptions are pretty much the same. These "laws" come around by social necessity, they are necessary for a society to function (societies can't function and hence cannot survive if there is constant theft.) and as such you'll find they come along on their own, without your fictional pal's intervention.

Who's arguing. Besides what other subject is worth discussing?

With you? Anything, as with another subject you might actually listen to fact-based argument, logic and rational discourse. Not that I think you'd UNDERSTAND it, but you might not be so entrenched in your stupidity. Clearly this subject is NOT worth discussing with you, as you have shown yourself unable to keep up with it, much like evolution. You are too stupid to understand it.

This is the problem today. Many people get religious but religion can do nothing for you. (...)but without a relationship with God through Jesus Christ it is in vain.

The "problem" is that many people are under-educated, and feel the need to buy into the increasingly mysticised attitude to religion, rather than the intellectual analysis of it, and as such they are disappointed when the fictional and irrational aspects of it let them down.

What you pretend is "a relationship with God through Jesus Christ" is *actually* the ability to close down all common sense, logic, rational argument, get rid of all the mental tools people deploy in their day to day lives, and suspend their disbelief long enough to indluge in pointless play acting.

People being unable or unwilling to do this is a testament to a strength of character, and prevalance of common sense over your brand of inane idiocy.

[Waus]

Whew. I kind of got lost in all the various arguments here.

I guess I just wanted to throw in my two cents though and say that I am a Christian.

I think that arguing online about "athiesm" is really kind of pointless though. To try to argue people into a spiritual connection...it misses the point. The way you impact people, the way you change lives - is through your own, and your relationship with them.

I'd rather have there be no real internet presence of Christianity on the internet in the sense of outreach. If it's something you believe in, then make it obvious through the way you interact with people and love them.

You can tell someone that "Christ loves you" or whatever all you want, but until you go out of your way to act that out in your life then it's just a lot of talk. I influence the people that I spend time with, that I care for - not strangers through a computer monitor.

I debated not saying anything here at all for just that reason, but I thought it might be of interest to certain people.

[racer5.0stang]

GMA']The Bible.

There are no conditions in which you can disobey God.

True, but God does not force us to unconditionaly obey him. He has given us free will.

And you follow it perfectly?

No, as I am not perfect.

But Christians steal all the time.

Exactly why I said SHOULDN'T. I know people steal regardless of their religion. It is called sin and we all do it.

All kinds of rules in the Old Testament are not followed. Do you eat shellfish, for example? Don't Catholics have a rule about meat on Friday or something? Do you follow that?

I am not Catholic so I do not follow their TRADITIONS which are not biblical. And as far as restraining from meats:

1 Timothy 4 1-3

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Does verse 3 sound like what you described?


What about the rules about homosexuals? The backwards attitudes on slavery and women? Those are 'in the Bible'.

There are no "rules" concerning homosexuals. The bible clearly states that it is an abomination. As far as women, men are to love their wives as they love the Lord.

If you give it more than a second's thought you'll realize that you basically pick and choose Biblical passages you agree with.

I agree with everything the Bible says. There are many versus that I don't understand due to the culture or context around it but that doesn't mean I don't agree with it. This is where studying comes in.

If one said, straight from God, hot off the presses, kill your son or something, would you do it? I mean, it has Biblical precedent; you should do it according to the book.

Why would another book need to be written? That is saying that God didn't get it right the first time around and needs to change some things. If that is the case then God is not God at all.
Or
Man on his own account has created another book which goes against the Bible only to support his own cause/opinion. In case you haven't realized this, just because someone says that God told them something doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. But, if it agrees with scripture, I would be more apt to believe them.

As for your analogy, it is not Biblical because it goes against the teachings of the Bible.

Furthermore, the topic is "athiest" because of the clip, which is not saying "Athiesm is correct, and as such we can prove the non-existance of God" but is infact saying "Athiesm is superior to deity based religion, because the people are smarter, and they act more morally." They provide prima facie evidence for this claim within the clip. It is YOU saying "ah, that might be the case, but you are WRONG, because he DOES exist." And you who are unable to support his allegations by providing prima facie evidence.

I never saw the clip, the author removed it from the website.

Since several self proclaimed athiest posted I merely asked how they came a/b this knowledge of God not existing.

According to the quote concerning that people are smarter, that is a load of crap. We just have better technology but that doesn't make us smarter. Look at the pyramids for example. We still cannot figure out exactly how they were built. But yet we are smarter. People as a whole are just as dumb as they have ever been.

Where are the Thomas Edisons of today?

Smarter. Tish and fipsy.

Do you really think even a single poster here respects your ignorant opinions more than me?

Sure, unlike you, I do not resort to name calling and temper tantrums to get my point across. I also do not claim to be in a wheel chair.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter of whether you believe that God exists or not.

[Ace42X]

I agree with everything the Bible says. There are many versus that I don't understand

You agree with something you don't understand? Why am I not surprised?

I never saw the clip, the author removed it from the website.

Then perhaps you should be more careful about your opinings when you don't have all the facts?

According to the quote concerning that people are smarter, that is a load of crap. We just have better technology but that doesn't make us smarter. Look at the pyramids for example. We still cannot figure out exactly how they were built. But yet we are smarter. People as a whole are just as dumb as they have ever been.

Where are the Thomas Edisons of today?

Smarter. Tish and fipsy.

You are substantially wrong on several points here. Firstly, the clip was saying that athiests are smarter than non-athiests. Not that people today are smarter than people in the past. It supported this by citing the numerous intellectuals and pioneers from history who all professed aethiest sentiments. More moral because the clip cited the fact that of the prison population, the percentage of "christians" is the same as in the outside world, whereas athiests make up a disproportionately small number of those in prison. You could theoretically argue that non-athiests are jsut better at "getting away with it" - but then that would tie into them being smarter.

Also, people are substantially smarter than they used to be. The average IQ is now higher than 100 for precisely this reason. IQ is calculated by a person's mental age, divided by their chronolohical age, multiplied by 100. As such an average IQ should be about 100, and when the tests were first issued, it was. Since then people have become substantially smarter, and the average IQ has gone up.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your posts.

Sure, unlike you, I do not resort to name calling and temper tantrums to get my point across. I also do not claim to be in a wheel chair.

No, you just resort to logical fallacies, factual innaccuracies, and the occasional cynical lie. You are incapable of holding onto a point, you lack any sort of understanding of the things you try to talk about, and I do not claim to be in a wheel chair. The fact that you are trying to jump on that old bandwagon speaks volumes about your desperation to villify me, as well as your stupidity. The fact that you and other moronic posters were unable to grasp very simple irony doesn't reflect badly on *me*.

Incidently, while you are keen to dismiss me insulting you as "temper-tantrum name calling" - it might do you some good to put down your arrogance and accept the possibility that I am calling you stupid and idiotic because *you have repeatedly proven yourself to be* rather than because of some perceived bias against you.

Oh, and the pyramids are not a mystery, there are plenty of theories as to how they could be built with the technology available. The fact that we do not *know* conclusively is because we can't go back in time and see for ourselves. We do know plenty of ways they *could've* done it.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter of whether you believe that God exists or not.

Why? My unsubstantiated beliefs are neither here nor there. This is a place for logic, facts and rational thought, not proselytizing. I know you are keen to get off fact-based discussion into the private reality that exists solely in your own opining, but that isn't going to happen. Sorry, but you'll have to get your mysticised masturbation fix elsewhere.

Finally, as you are convinced that your opinions are more respected than mine, let's throw this to the vote:

Who here thinks Racerstang's opinions are anything other than irrational, illogical, nonsensical, or stupid?

Who thinks they are more insightful than mine?

Vote now.

Oh, and Valvano's opinion doesn't count, I'll say that premptively as he'd eat a turd and say it tasted like cream if he thought it would put one over on me.

[EN[i]GMA]

True, but God does not force us to unconditionaly obey him.

The Hell he doesn't.

It's unconditionally obey me, or burn in hell.

Rather like telling a child "obey me or I'll place your hand on a hot stove.".

Sure, the child has the 'free will' to disobey, but the child is most certainly being forced to do something.

In fact, that analogy isn't apt, because God's punishment is eternal and infinite, whereas human punishment can only be finite.


He has given us free will.

Is that supposed to impress me?

"I've given you a one-way ticket to hell, enjoy!"


No, as I am not perfect.

Which is what the Christian God ostensibly expects.

No, you aren't perfect, and no, no person is perfect; why then does God require is to be perfect?


Exactly why I said SHOULDN'T. I know people steal regardless of their religion. It is called sin and we all do it.

Then what good is it doing?

I can't imagine God, up in his heaven, saying "I'm going to make this rule, but I'm going to make it so nobody follows it. Then I'll send 'em to hell!"

Obviously 'being a Christian' doesn't stop thievery, doesn't stop murder, etc.

In fact, in many casese, it can cause it. Killing or pillaging for your church, for instance.


I am not Catholic so I do not follow their TRADITIONS which are not biblical. And as far as restraining from meats:

1 Timothy 4 1-3

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Does verse 3 sound like what you described?

I don't know, it just seems strange that Jews and Catholics don't do it; they seem to think it's sinful.

I'm betting they have a reason.


There are no "rules" concerning homosexuals. The bible clearly states that it is an abomination. As far as women, men are to love their wives as they love the Lord.

Which is of course impossible and a sin.

You can't love anyone 'like' you love God, obviously.

And if you love them as much as you love God, God isn't pre-eminent in your life; a sin.

Why would God create homosexuals, if indeed it is an abomination?

We have studies that show that there is a strong pre-natal influence for homosexuality in mothers having more sons.

Why cause that to happen?


I agree with everything the Bible says. There are many versus that I don't understand due to the culture or context around it but that doesn't mean I don't agree with it. This is where studying comes in.

What good is giving us a rule book if hardly none of us know the rules?

What is contained in those verses you don't know? I mean, it could be anything.


Why would another book need to be written? That is saying that God didn't get it right the first time around and needs to change some things. If that is the case then God is not God at all.

Refer to your previous statement.

Obviously we need a new rule book because we don't understand the first.


Man on his own account has created another book which goes against the Bible only to support his own cause/opinion. In case you haven't realized this, just because someone says that God told them something doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. But, if it agrees with scripture, I would be more apt to believe them.

That is the most circular thing I've ever seen.

"Just because someone says God told them something doesn't mean it's true; but if it agrees with something someone said because God told them so, well then I'll believe it."

[Schmeltz]

Look at the pyramids for example. We still cannot figure out exactly how they were built.


This is ridiculous. The Ancient Egyptians wouldn't have been able to build a skyscraper and their life expectancy was something like twenty-five years. If you don't think we're smarter than the Ancient Egyptians, all I can say is speak for yourself. People are better educated and more interconnected than ever before and three millennia of history and experience separate us from the ancient world.

[Qdrop]

why are you people arguing with Racer about religion?

this is like fucking Groundhog Day....

[Funkaloyd]

So if I asked you for $700, would you give it to me, as per Matthew 5:42?
Didn't think so.

I learnt a new term the other day, "Cafeteria Christian".

"Not even Jesus himself will be able to save your ass if I find any Sermon on the Mount in my FaithNotWorks Sandwich!"

[racer5.0stang]

GMA]It's unconditionally obey me, or burn in hell.

No, the only requirement God has is to believe in His Son, Jesus Christ.

That is what keeps you from going to Hell, nothing else.

"I've given you a one-way ticket to hell, enjoy!"

It is our choice as to what we will do with Jesus Christ.

No, you aren't perfect, and no, no person is perfect; why then does God require is to be perfect?

He doesn't expect/require us to be perfect. How could He?

Romans 3:23-25

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

God sent his Son to die for us because Jesus is perfect and kept every part of God's Law. He was sent to die for us and pay the sin debt in our place.

Obviously 'being a Christian' doesn't stop thievery, doesn't stop murder, etc.

If someone is truely born again, they shouldn't do these things. But as you said, being a Christian doesn't stop people from doing these things. Their sins are forgiven though, if they are saved.

In fact, in many casese, it can cause it. Killing or pillaging for your church, for instance.

Unfortunately, there are always extremists. Most of the time these extremist try to further THEIR cause and tacking on the word of God to justify their actions.

I don't know, it just seems strange that Jews and Catholics don't do it; they seem to think it's sinful.

I'm betting they have a reason.

The Jews are still waiting for Messiah and Catholics think telling another man (priest, bishop) their sins and saying a few Hail Mary's will save their souls.

1 Timothy 2:5-6

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

There is no need for a man/woman to confess their sins to a priest when they can confess directly to Jesus himself.

Catholics and Jews seem to focus on traditions and outward acts or works rather than a relationship with God.

Why would God create homosexuals, if indeed it is an abomination?

Who said God created homosexuals?

If you were trying to justify your actions wouldn't it sound better and more convincing even to yourself to say that you were born that way. If you are born a certain way, it seems to relieve any responsibility for your actions, after all, you were born that way.

What good is giving us a rule book if hardly none of us know the rules?

Do you think it is God's fault that we don't know His Word?

It's only been around for almost 2000 years.

[Ace42X]

Do you think it is God's fault that we don't know His Word?

It's only been around for almost 2000 years.

Although the KJA version you are familiar with has only been around for 400... The Canterbury Tales have been around longer, as has Beowulf.

[alexandra]

geez people, all this talk about proof. god's existence cannot be proved with a damn equation, or any math. give me a break. love, justice, brotherhood and other immortal and beautiful things you can find in even the darkest situations should be enough "proof" for you to see that there's a god. not to mention the human body with all its incredible functions, etc. for you to just be able to understand what i'm writing right now is pretty neat, dontchathink? nothing has happened by chance. there's a lot of intelligence behind all this. try to appreciate things instead of tearing shit.

god has everything you need, and if you want his qualities, you'll receive them. it's your choice. he doesn't force anyone. why would he? when you force someone, things go wrong. we have to do things of our own free will. it's like that, and it shouldn't be hard to understand.

the lousy statements in this thread are endless. most of you sound pretty misled and whatnot. if you're gonna talk about the bible, i suggest you actually read it yourself, with an open mind, and then come back. have a good day.

[Schmeltz]

If you were trying to justify your actions wouldn't it sound better and more convincing even to yourself to say that you were born that way. If you are born a certain way, it seems to relieve any responsibility for your actions, after all, you were born that way.


That is, hands down, the single most ignorant and idiotic statement I have ever read. It boggles my mind to consider that people can actually be so regressive as to actually produce such disgusting, shallow, poorly informed, prejudiced and intolerant excuses for actual reasoning. Have you done any actual reading on homosexuality? Any real information come your way at all? Or have you managed to pull the wool over your own eyes and constructed some bizarre alternate reality where homosexuality is a simple black-and-white issue easily resolved via your own simplistic methods of judgment and scorn?

If this kind of sickening ignorance is what you get in return for a relationship with God, I want nothing whatsoever to do with it.


if you're gonna talk about the bible, i suggest you actually read it yourself


I was raised in a fundamentalist religious atmosphere and have read the Bible, cover to cover, on multiple occasions over a period of years. All of its redeeming philosophy and valuable principles can be found in the holy books of every other religion and are nicely contained within the principles of humanism and other secular philosophies as well. There's nothing particularly special about it. It certainly doesn't offer any support for the existence of the God it describes, and indeed much of its content has been factually disproven by science and history. So what's the big deal?

If you choose to see the hand of God in the positive aspects of your life, then that's all well and good. But they don't offer any hard evidence for God's existence, and you'll have a pretty tough time convincing people of that when you're on the side of foul-mouthed extremists like racer here. Have a good day too.

[EN[i]GMA]

geez people, all this talk about proof. god's existence cannot be proved with a damn equation, or any math. give me a break. love, justice, brotherhood and other immortal and beautiful things you can find in even the darkest situations should be enough "proof" for you to see that there's a god.

If those things are proof God, then hate, injustice, division and mortal, ugly things should be disproof of God.

But of course I know your answer: "God is responsible for the Good, evil is not following God."

Of course, it's just as logically valid to say "God is responsible for the Evil, good is just disobeying God."

There is no logical difference between them, only an emotional one.

This should show that your 'reasoning' is flawed and isn't proof of anything.

Yeah, there's good stuff, but there's bad stuff too.

not to mention the human body with all its incredible functions, etc. for you to just be able to understand what i'm writing right now is pretty neat, dontchathink? nothing has happened by chance. there's a lot of intelligence behind all this. try to appreciate things instead of tearing shit.

Oh, I certainly think a lot of what's evolved is very ingenious.

But much like Darwin, I have a problem with a God designing parasites that eat creatures alive, for instance.


god has everything you need, and if you want his qualities, you'll receive them. it's your choice. he doesn't force anyone. why would he? when you force someone, things go wrong. we have to do things of our own free will. it's like that, and it shouldn't be hard to understand.

God, logically, could 'force' me to do anything, and it couldn't 'go wrong' because he decides right and wrong in the first place.

It's nonsense.


the lousy statements in this thread are endless. most of you sound pretty misled and whatnot. if you're gonna talk about the bible, i suggest you actually read it yourself, with an open mind, and then come back. have a good day.

I have no intention of reading it; I have better ways to spend my time, reading serious books about philosophy and religion.

[racer5.0stang]

Although the KJA version you are familiar with has only been around for 400... The Canterbury Tales have been around longer, as has Beowulf.

I guess if you wanted to get technical the Word of God as been around since before the formation of the world as per John 1:1.

Therefore, it is in fact older than The Canterbury Tales and your beloved Beowulf.

[Schmeltz]

If you actually wanted to get technical, you would reconsider all the fallacies and unsubstantiated drivel in that post.

[Ace42X]

I guess if you wanted to get technical the Word of God as been around since before the formation of the world as per John 1:1.

Therefore, it is in fact older than The Canterbury Tales and your beloved Beowulf.

Yeah, as Schmeltz pointed out, if you wanted to get *technical* you wouldn't be able to use circular arguments and other fallacies, etc.

Oh, and "in the begininning there was the word" can't possibly mean that "the world started with god reciting the bible in KJA English." It doesn't change the fact that the "word" *you personally* put so much faith in was *created* (not even literaly or directly translated) by a bunch of Englishmen four hundred years ago, and that there are plenty of alternative translations of the bible, many which directly contradict the principles you personally put forth here, which are older and closer to the source manuscripts available.

While I could get technical and start talking about the numerous interpretations of that passage, this isn't the time or the place for it.

What it is the time and the place for is your explanation of why you think your opinions are more respected than mine when pretty much all of the posts in here have referred to your ignorance and stupidity, logic errors and specious reasoning at least once.

Could it be your "delusion" others have pointed out?

[Bob]

Do you think it is God's fault that we don't know His Word?

It's only been around for almost 2000 years.


what about the people that were around before then?

True, but God does not force us to unconditionaly obey him. He has given us free will.

does he know what we're going to freely choose to do before we choose to do it?

[Bob]

geez people, all this talk about proof. god's existence cannot be proved with a damn equation, or any math. give me a break. love, justice, brotherhood and other immortal and beautiful things you can find in even the darkest situations should be enough "proof" for you to see that there's a god. not to mention the human body with all its incredible functions, etc. for you to just be able to understand what i'm writing right now is pretty neat, dontchathink? nothing has happened by chance. there's a lot of intelligence behind all this. try to appreciate things instead of tearing shit.


i can see how those things would convince a person that there's a god, but why the christian god, the bible god? that could be any god. i don't understand how you go from this to "the bible is right".

there's so many conceptions of god, why, based on this, are you so sure the bible's got it right?

[Waus]

does he know what we're going to freely choose to do before we choose to do it?

I love that discussion. Always goes in circles, but still interests me.

I mean - he must know since he knows everything, but he still doesn't force the decisions. At the same time people talk about 'God's Plan,' so is he really just sitting back?

[Bob]

I love that discussion. Always goes in circles, but still interests me.

I mean - he must know since he knows everything, but he still doesn't force the decisions. At the same time people talk about 'God's Plan,' so is he really just sitting back?

yeah, it's kind of the philosophy 101 question regarding fate and free will...i've heard lots of different answers from lots of very old and well regarded philosophers, but i'm still not really satisfied. if god knows what you're going to freely choose to do before you do it, then it means that your actions are predetermined, and do really have a choice? and he can't not know it, because he's god, he knows everything.

i think an important thing to do regarding this question is to define "free". does being free mean you must have the opportunity to do otherwise? i forget who, i think it was either john locke or john stuart mill who said something about it that made me think. suppose you're imprisoned, and you have absolutely no chance to escape from your situation, but you also have absolutely no desire to escape. you can't leave, but you wouldn't want to, either, even if you could. are you freely choosing to stay where you are, even though you can't choose to do anything different? if the answer to that is yes, then i think it could help satisfy the fate/free will problem posed by an omniscient god.

[Waus]

if god knows what you're going to freely choose to do before you do it, then it means that your actions are predetermined, and do really have a choice?

...are you freely choosing to stay where you are, even though you can't choose to do anything different? if the answer to that is yes, then i think it could help satisfy the fate/free will problem posed by an omniscient god.

It's an interesting conundrum. The thing of it is, I wouldn't say that our actions are pre-determined so much as God can just see things outside of time. Like, if you look back and think about something you did - you had a choice at the time, and you made it. That choice is now irreversible, so you might say that it "had to happen that way" when really it could only happen one way, and that was just the way that you chose.

[Ace42X]

It's an interesting conundrum. The thing of it is, I wouldn't say that our actions are pre-determined so much as God can just see things outside of time. Like, if you look back and think about something you did - you had a choice at the time, and you made it. That choice is now irreversible, so you might say that it "had to happen that way" when really it could only happen one way, and that was just the way that you chose.

Einstein agrees with you.

[Waus]

Yeah? Good work Einstein. I should've been a philosophy major.

[Ace42X]

Yeah? Good work Einstein.

Indeed, his argument that past, present and future are different ways of looking at the same thing (space-time) is in accordance with your explanation. Although it doesn't necessitate a deity.

[alexandra]

i can see how those things would convince a person that there's a god, but why the christian god, the bible god? that could be any god.
bob dear, there's only one god. the one and only. the most superior creature.

when i've said this to people, they've given me an uncomfortable look, like they're ashamed of the thought that we (humans) aren't the most intelligent creatures in the universe. that we do come from something. i can't see why that'd be something bad. if we're the most superior creatures in the universe, then boy, it's pretty sad.

[Waus]

I've always been a big fan of free-will theory. There's been a handful of discussions in my apartment with Calvinists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism) over predestination and the like. I'll concede that it's not as clear-cut as I'd like, but I still say there's nothing on top of nothing controlling my choices.

[abcdefz]

It's an interesting conundrum. The thing of it is, I wouldn't say that our actions are pre-determined so much as God can just see things outside of time. Like, if you look back and think about something you did - you had a choice at the time, and you made it. That choice is now irreversible, so you might say that it "had to happen that way" when really it could only happen one way, and that was just the way that you chose.


The hard thing -- one of the hard things -- is that's not what the Bible says. Paul addresses the problem of predestination, and that it's real, and yet we can still be held "at fault."

[Waus]

bob dear, there's only one god. the one and only. the most superior creature.


I think Bob means 'what makes you think your Christian perception of God is correct'?

There's lots of religions that support the concept of monotheism that don't necessarily characterize God in the same way.

[Ace42X]

bob dear, there's only one god. the one and only. the most superior creature.

That strikes me as a common-sense black hole. That's like saying that only the most superior individual human "is human" and so there can be only one.

Also, it is an easy thing to say when you do not provide a shred of proof or a rationale behind it.

[Waus]

The hard thing -- one of the hard things -- is that's not what the Bible says. Paul addresses the problem of predestination, and that it's real, and yet we can still be held "at fault."

I know...verses in Romans, Ephesians and uh...Isaiah? My memory fails me, I write stuff like that in my journals so I don't have to remember.

Some of the arguments over that scripture (in my case) is that often the original greek and hebrew texts use words that suggest predestination (or God's will for our lives) involving the direction and purpose our lives take, and not so much the condition of our soul/salvation.

Also, in my case, I tend to think back to the big picture a lot. If God created us to love him by choice, then he eliminates that choice by deciding whether we reconcile with him or not. This is a big part of my interpretation of scripture about predestination.

[Planetary]

Nor have you offered any proof that God does not exist. Only your simple opinion that some of your e-friends have duped you into believing. Sad really.

Without proof of god's existence, how can ace have been 'duped', but not you?

[Schmeltz]

bob dear, there's only one god. the one and only. the most superior creature.


Prove it. Something makes me doubt that the looks you get from people when you say that actually involve discomfort at the thought of being inferior to a God. I know that when I look at religious people funny, that's definitely not what I'm thinking.

[Bob]

I think Bob means 'what makes you think your Christian perception of God is correct'?

There's lots of religions that support the concept of monotheism that don't necessarily characterize God in the same way.

correct (as usual, are you sure we're not the same person, beck?). except i'm not even married to the idea of monotheism (again, i'm an agnostic, i'm not married to the idea of god at all, necessarily), there could really be any conception of an infinite divine. i don't see why it has to be god, and more specifically, god as defined by the bible.

[Waus]

... there could really be any conception of an infinite divine. i don't see why it has to be god, and more specifically, god as defined by the bible.

Obviously I can't make much of an argument over the internet, and a lot of my beliefs are closely tied with the Bible - so if you discredit that my arguments become more logical than referential.

I agree that there really could be any conception of an infinite divine, but the thing of it is that the 'infinite divine' isn't based on subjective conception, its (he's?) an objective reality. The reason I believe in the god as defined by the Christian Bible mostly has to do with personal experience - but I'll ignore that for the moment.

God as defined in the Bible makes moral and logical sense. I think that it "has to be god" because (as I see it) God is more than just an ubiquitous 'life force' ala Star Wars, and acts with a consciousness and intent that goes beyond nature. Also, and this might be another argument, but - creation doesn't seem like it could've happened spontaneously. Things tend toward chaos and disorder instead of order, so saying that particles could have just randomly come together to form reality as we know it seems unsound.

"god as defined by the bible" makes sense to me considering the evidence in humans who are made "in God's own image" (somewhere in Genesis). The God of the Bible shows sincere love for his creation and desires for his creation to enjoy life and enjoy their relationship with him. Jesus teaches the most simple rules about how we're to conduct ourselves (paraphrase)"loving God first, and then eachother." If there really is a God who is omnipotent and omniscient, then it seems like these would be the type of things he would want for us (as opposed to a strict regimen of prayer, pilgrimages, rituals etc.). Love, Goodness, Creation being essential to his nature all make sense for a being that we see as the greatest thing in existence.

[alexandra]

i guess it's very hard convincing people when they don't even want to be convinced. doesn't really matter what none of us say. we can always find something to contradict because we're so determined. we should just respect each other. no one wants to be criticized for what they believe or don't believe in.

aaamen. ;)

[Ace42X]

we can always find something to contradict because we're so determined.

I'd hardly say the total absence of physical proof, or even clear supporting evidence amounts to people being "determined" to contradict anything.

[Ace42X]

Things tend toward chaos and disorder instead of order, so saying that particles could have just randomly come together to form reality as we know it seems unsound.

Nah, that's not the case in that sense. Anyone who has ever poured powdered soup into a saucepan will testify that they clump. There are similar tendancies at work in astrophysics. And "particles randomly coming together" ? Gravitational attraction isn't "random", nor is it a selective sentient entity. And the premise that "things tend towards chaos" predicates an organised non-chaotic start point for tem to tend to chaos from. You could argue "things tend to come from order" just as well, without it meaning there has to be a god.

[Bob]

no one wants to be criticized for what they believe or don't believe in.



that's right, we don't

[Schmeltz]

we should just respect each other.


I can get behind that. I think it's possible, however, to have a meaningful exchange of ideas between dissenting parties who still respect each other.


God as defined in the Bible makes moral and logical sense... The God of the Bible shows sincere love for his creation and desires for his creation to enjoy life and enjoy their relationship with him.


My consideration of the text has led me to exactly the opposite conclusion. The God of the Bible is a vicious, nationalist, xenophobic, patriarchal war deity who annihilates his human creation in the thousands every time they trip up or make a mistake like eating quail before it's bled properly, or taking a census. He only wants his creation to enjoy life and their relationship with him on his own terms, which make little real sense ("My love for you is conditional on your refusal to eat fruit from this readily accessible tree") and are often self-absorbed and petty. Yahweh has too many human qualities to be the God you make him out to be; he is jealous, easily provoked, controlling, domineering, and violent - rather like many of the other male deities concocted in ancient times.

Of course the vision of God in the New Testament is much more abstract and personal than that presented in the Old Testament, demonstrating the wide range of philosophy available in the text as a whole. But if you're going to take "the God of the Bible" as a unitary concept, you really ought to address his very prominent negative characteristics, which paint a picture of him as not so different from the very worst of his own creations.

[Waus]

Nah, that's not the case in that sense. Anyone who has ever poured powdered soup into a saucepan will testify that they clump. There are similar tendancies at work in astrophysics. And "particles randomly coming together" ? Gravitational attraction isn't "random", nor is it a selective sentient entity. And the premise that "things tend towards chaos" predicates an organised non-chaotic start point for tem to tend to chaos from. You could argue "things tend to come from order" just as well, without it meaning there has to be a god.

All good points.

Other things that seem to indicate a creator (to me) include the development of animals over time. I don't disagree with evolution, but I have yet to see evidence of inter-species evolution. What seems impossible to me is the development of original complex organs. For instance - an eye. If the tiny mutations or changes that eventually would lead the the growth of a functioning eye offer no advantages to the creature before it's actually developed a working ocular organ - why would it have any advantage over another creature? How could it make the necessary jumps in complexity over relatively few generations?

An analogy that I always liked goes something like -

If you were to find a wristwatch in the forest, you wouldn't assume that the elements had congealed into that mechanism.

Arguing over creation always frustrates me because it tends to take discussion places I'm not interested in.

[EN[i]GMA]

All good points.

Other things that seem to indicate a creator (to me) include the development of animals over time. I don't disagree with evolution, but I have yet to see evidence of inter-species evolution. What seems impossible to me is the development of original complex organs. For instance - an eye. If the tiny mutations or changes that eventually would lead the the growth of a functioning eye offer no advantages to the creature before it's actually developed a working ocular organ - why would it have any advantage over another creature? How could it make the necessary jumps in complexity over relatively few generations?

An analogy that I always liked goes something like -

If you were to find a wristwatch in the forest, you wouldn't assume that the elements had congealed into that mechanism.

Arguing over creation always frustrates me because it tends to take discussion places I'm not interested in.

Well, not to preempt, but the 'watch' analogy fails for quite a few reasons.

One big one is, we aren't really designed that well.

We have flaws. Our retinas are installed backwards, seemingly. We have goosebumps to fluff up fur. We don't have fur. Our appendixes (appendices?) don't seem to be necesary, any more.

Plus if you bring in design, a lot of things start to make less sense. Why are some people ugly? Why would God just make some people ugly? Why do we get old like we do, in a very difficult manner?

If I were desigining us, I would fix all these things.

[Waus]

My consideration of the text has led me to exactly the opposite conclusion. The God of the Bible is a vicious, nationalist, xenophobic, patriarchal war deity who annihilates his human creation in the thousands every time they trip up or make a mistake like eating quail before it's bled properly, or taking a census. He only wants his creation to enjoy life and their relationship with him on his own terms, which make little real sense ("My love for you is conditional on your refusal to eat fruit from this readily accessible tree") and are often self-absorbed and petty. Yahweh has too many human qualities to be the God you make him out to be; he is jealous, easily provoked, controlling, domineering, and violent - rather like many of the other male deities concocted in ancient times.

Of course the vision of God in the New Testament is much more abstract and personal than that presented in the Old Testament, demonstrating the wide range of philosophy available in the text as a whole. But if you're going to take "the God of the Bible" as a unitary concept, you really ought to address his very prominent negative characteristics, which paint a picture of him as not so different from the very worst of his own creations.

I can see where you're coming from with that - there definitly seems to be a dichotomy between the God of the Old Testament and New. I wish I had my notes with me here at work so I could make more sense. ;)

For one thing, I'm a Christian, and not a Jew, so the "more abstract and personal" view of God is more immediately applicable to me.

Going strictly on my own thoughts - I suppose looking at God's actions in the old testament are sometimes hard to reconcile with a loving God. One thing that's always interested me about it is that he acts like something with a consciousness, and not like a machine. I've wondered before whether something that is "perfect love, perfect goodness" etc. can really be a sentient being considering it's actions are so governed by those essential natures.

One thing to consider would be that (acc. to the Bible) we have all sinned and the wages of sin are death. With that in mind, when God acted out his wrath against people in the old testament you could consider that they were just getting what they deserved. I know that sounds ignorant, but I don't pretend that I'm any better and don't deserve the same treatment, the idea that God would love in spite of this portrays him in a good light.

Essentially, I think that Yahweh has more of a balanced (if apparently flawed) character than you say. Yes, he did destroy cities, was jealous of false idols and harsh on sinners. Also consider that he listened to pleas over the wicked and spared them, he rescued his chosen people from slavery (fed them, blessed them etc.), established David as a good and wise king.

One thing I like to keep in mind is that in the Old Testament the world was not as God wanted it. He created Adam and Eve to be in a close relationship with him, and that was destroyed. Jesus had not yet reconciled us by grace, so I kind of see it as the world was in a sort of limbo.

[Waus]

GMA']
Plus if you bring in design, a lot of things start to make less sense. Why are some people ugly? Why would God just make some people ugly? Why do we get old like we do, in a very difficult manner?

If I were desigining us, I would fix all these things.

I can't pretend like I know the answers to this - but I have some thoughts.

I realize this won't be applicable at all to people who put no value in the Bible, but -
I think a lot of the reasons we are so flawed now is because we aren't in creation as it was intended. Adam and Eve were, but since the fall I think that mankind's genetic makeup has been in a certain sort of steady decline. I suppose people look differently because they play different roles in life. Why would God make some people artistic? Why would God make some people athletic? I don't know the answers to either of those either, but I assume there must be some reason - I can't see the bigger picture.

[Ace42X]

What seems impossible to me is the development of original complex organs. For instance - an eye.

An old argument. From The Science of Discworld

'The classic example - still routinely trotted out by creationists and others even though Darwin himself had a pretty good answer - is the evolution of the eye. (...)
Darwin himself pointed out that in creatures alive in his day you could find all kinds of light-sensitive organs - starting with patches of skin, then increasing in complexity, light-gathering power, and ability to detect fine detail, right up to structures as sophisticated as a human eye. There is a continuum of eye-like organs in the living world, and every creature gains an advantage by having its own type of light-sensing device, in comparison to similar creatures that have a slightly less effective device of a similar kind. In 1994 Daniel Nilsson and Susanne Pelger used a computer to see what would happen to a mathematical model of a light-sensing surface if it was allowed to change in small, random, biologically feasible ways, with only those changes that improved its sensitivity to light being retained. They found that within 400,000 generations - an evolutionary blink of an eye - that flat surface gradually changed into a recognizable eye, complete with a lens. The lens even bent light differently in different places, just like our eye, and unlike normal spectacle lenses. At every tiny step along the way, a creature with the improved 'eye' would be better than those with the old version. At no stage was there "half an eye", just light-sensing things that got better at it.'

If the tiny mutations or changes that eventually would lead the the growth of a functioning eye offer no advantages to the creature before it's actually developed a working ocular organ - why would it have any advantage over another creature? How could it make the necessary jumps in complexity over relatively few generations?

See above.

If you were to find a wristwatch in the forest, you wouldn't assume that the elements had congealed into that mechanism.

I'd assume elements had congealed into something in the long distant past that could bring the other elements together. I'd not assume that some intangible magical force had willed it into existence.

[Schmeltz]

I think a lot of the reasons we are so flawed now is because we aren't in creation as it was intended. Adam and Eve were, but since the fall I think that mankind's genetic makeup has been in a certain sort of steady decline.


I've often heard that idea expounded, but scientifically it doesn't hold any water; humanity's genetic identity has actually strengthened over time, and not declined.


One thing that's always interested me about it is that he acts like something with a consciousness


Yes, he acts very much like his own creations and embodies many of their own characteristics, both good and bad. Almost as if he is more a reflection of them, than they are of him.


when God acted out his wrath against people in the old testament you could consider that they were just getting what they deserved.


I'm afraid that sounds more than ignorant, it sounds positively hateful. The idea of God as omnipotent does not jive with the idea that God is forced to work through limited mechanisms in order to accomplish his purposes. An omnipotent and loving God would not consider genocide and the destructive manipulation of the natural world to be necessary to the reconciliation of himself with his own creation. When he visited the ten plagues on the Egyptians he killed their livestock and crops - are animals and plants guilty of sin as well? This is, of course, to say nothing of the orders given to the Israelites to ethnically cleanse the Promised Land even of the children in the population, or to make sex slaves out of captured women. In point of fact, the very idea that God would select a "chosen people" for redemption while abandoning billions of his own creation smacks of favoritism if not incompetence.

I'm sorry, but I can't come around to your point of view, at least not as expressed here. I find it inconsistent, idealistic, and self-contradictory. More than anything, I think it exposes God as a human creation, the ultimate expression of humanity rather than its ultimate origin.

[Waus]

[talked about eyes and stuff]

I guess I can't argue against that, the whole light-sensing progression.

A professor who went to my church while I lived at home once gave a long lecture about probabilities how it was impossible for the universe to have spontaneoulsy come into existence. I don't really talk about it much because the lecture was more or less over my head.

Here's a link to it (http://myweb.arbor.edu/cwhite/211/science1/index.htm)...although it loses a lot without him actually giving the lecture to go with the slides.

A lot of what I really prefer to discuss is more focused around Jesus. We are here, creation happened one way or another (God or just...existing). Jesus' life and it's implications are more central to what I concern myself with.

[Ace42X]

I guess I can't argue against that

Yah, it is pretty air-tight. That's the problem with creationism, the people who put forward the arguments for it generally overlook the numerous sensible criticisms against it. It is simply unreasonable to expect primitive desert-dwelling, often nomadic, tribes people to come up with a coherent fact-based view of the world, and it is sad seeing some die-hard apologests try to bend over backwards to make it so.

A lot of what I really prefer to discuss is more focused around Jesus. We are here, creation happened one way or another (God or just...existing). Jesus' life and it's implications are more central to what I concern myself with.

Certainly the subjective grounds (such as moral implications, or philosophical considerations) are much more fertile and relevent to how we live. Of course, the problem is a lot of apologests also try to draw the literal dogmatic old testament into the more parabolic philosophical new testament, rather than the other way around. This is what "fundamentalism" means, IMO. Trying to dumb down a sophisticated ethos into old testament fairy stories and pronouncements.

[Waus]

I'm sorry, but I can't come around to your point of view, at least not as expressed here. I find it inconsistent, idealistic, and self-contradictory. More than anything, I think it exposes God as a human creation, the ultimate expression of humanity rather than its ultimate origin.

I'm not really trying to convince anyone of anything, just explaining myself.

I try not to be inconsistent or self-contradictory in what I say, but I don't really have any scruples about being idealistic.

A lot of your inferences about God's nature seem to be based off of his Old Testament actions. I haven't been to seminary school or anything, and I generally stick to the New Testament in my reading, so every detail of the history outlined in it might be beyond me. God's actions with the Israelites are hard to understand, I'll admit. I'm not trying to act as the institution of Christianity and defend every sentence in the Bible, I'm just a guy trying to figure things out too.

What I wonder is how you compare what the New Testament teaches with what the Old Testament (in your opinion) implies about God. If God really is as intrinsically flawed as you suggest, where do the guidelines for righteous living come from?

[Qdrop]

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

^pretty much everything you need to know.

[Ace42X]

Just a quick look at the link you provided: Seems pretty specious. A lot of strawmen in there. "If you accept this as fact, then it means this." When you need not accept the initial premise, argument or conclusion, for example.

[Waus]

Certainly the subjective grounds (such as moral implications, or philosophical considerations) are much more fertile and relevent to how we live. Of course, the problem is a lot of apologests also try to draw the literal dogmatic old testament into the more parabolic philosophical new testament, rather than the other way around. This is what "fundamentalism" means, IMO. Trying to dumb down a sophisticated ethos into old testament fairy stories and pronouncements.

One question I had for a while is "why do we even have most of the Old Testament?" It seemed to me like there was a lot of material that would tend to confuse rather than convict. For instance - people constantly use the laws in Leviticus to point out different rules in Jewish law as unreasonable Christian ideas. I still don't understand the rituals and laws of Judaism and why God would come up with things like that, or allow human traditions to come up with their own.

[Schmeltz]

What I wonder is how you compare what the New Testament teaches with what the Old Testament (in your opinion) implies about God. If God really is as intrinsically flawed as you suggest, where do the guidelines for righteous living come from?


I suppose, since I have no faith in the Bible as a sacred text or as a holistic creation, I compare them on the basis of different interpretations. The Old Testament is a compilation of mythology from the Ancient Near East and early Jewish tradition; the New Testament is a compilation of more developed Jewish tradition and Hellenistic philosophy. The themes of each one differ from the themes of the other, as do the character and tone of the works. To me, they are simply two different studies in the development of both ancient and Western cultures. I see no need whatsoever to reconcile the two into a holistic, unified body of work because I assign them no greater value than other cultural texts.

As for the guidelines for righteous living - there is no objective moral standard universally applicable to human societies across space and time. In every era of history, humans have worked their moral guidelines out through social negotiation and compromise, and the dynamic tension underneath every social relationship, whether between individuals or groups, has yielded innumerable definitions of "righteous living" wildly different from place to place and from time to time. If you choose to emphasize the Bible in negotiating your own brand of righteous living, all well and good - you could certainly do a lot worse. Personally, my definition of "righteous living" does not involve the Bible at all.

[Waus]

Just a quick look at the link you provided: Seems pretty specious. A lot of strawmen in there. "If you accept this as fact, then it means this." When you need not accept the initial premise, argument or conclusion, for example.

I don't remember how it went exactly.

Um, I guess in any discussion about "the origin of reality" you have to establish some starting points and acceptable premises. It's such a nebulous discussion...creating waypoints seems like the only way to make a continuing thought or explanation about it.

[Ace42X]

One question I had for a while is "why do we even have most of the Old Testament?" It seemed to me like there was a lot of material that would tend to confuse rather than convict. For instance - people constantly use the laws in Leviticus to point out different rules in Jewish law as unreasonable Christian ideas. I still don't understand the rituals and laws of Judaism and why God would come up with things like that, or allow human traditions to come up with their own.

If you look at it from a non-religious point of view (IE either believe there is no God, or he doesn't see fit to *always* get his hands dirty with our petty affairs) a lot of the rules are quite sensible. There is often a sociological or biological imperative driving these rules, and as such indoctrinating them strengthens the society. Appealing to a greater authority than "well, I said so, and I have some good reasons..." or "Well, I was always told this..." is a good way to get rules obeyed.

A lot of rules about dietary practices substantially reduce the risk of being infected with intestinal parasites, for example. Monogamy lowers incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, and helps to reinforce direct parental responsibilities, and thus a cohesive group.

Over time, a lot of these rules become irrelevent (hence a lot of them being dropped by the new testament) and are replaced by either more flexible / practical secular laws, or are rendered obsolete altogether. It is only a slavish dedication to dogma that keeps these rules current in some diehard fundamentalist societies.

Of course, a religious explanation is that God simply doesn't have as many rules as people attribute to him, and the new testament is a proclamation to his creation to beware people kean to put words in god's mouth. Some might say that includes some of Paul's attitudes, and certainly some of the translational conventions that have been applied.

[Waus]

As for the guidelines for righteous living - there is no objective moral standard universally applicable to human societies across space and time. In every era of history, humans have worked their moral guidelines out through social negotiation and compromise, and the dynamic tension underneath every social relationship, whether between individuals or groups, has yielded innumerable definitions of "righteous living" wildly different from place to place and from time to time. If you choose to emphasize the Bible in negotiating your own brand of righteous living, all well and good - you could certainly do a lot worse. Personally, my definition of "righteous living" does not involve the Bible at all.

Ah, this is where my essentially unchangable views differ. I do believe that there is an objective moral standard.

I read "Mere Christianity" a long time ago, and it's on my bookshelf at home - but I remember one section of it discussed objective morality.

It's going to be embarassing coming back to this post and seeing how pathetcially I recreated C.S.Lewis' thoughts but as I recall -

Mankind can basically come to agreements on the first level of morality - interpersonal relationships. These become obvious living with eachother, they are to different degrees necessary to maintain a working society. Love your brother, so on and so forth.

The second level of morality is where secular culture begins to depart, and I think the second level was supposed to be how we act outside relations to other people. Whether what we do that "hurts no one else" matters or not.

The third level was our relationship to deity.

(again - this is probably pretty innacurate).

Anyways, I guess what I'm saying is that in my opinion righteous living is more than just how you treat other people. We can totally agree on how to live in relationship with one another and have vastly different views on morality all the same. So, humanity creating it's laws over time have both everything to do with religion and at the same time nothing to do with it in my opinion.

[abcdefz]

One question I had for a while is "why do we even have most of the Old Testament?" It seemed to me like there was a lot of material that would tend to confuse rather than convict. For instance - people constantly use the laws in Leviticus to point out different rules in Jewish law as unreasonable Christian ideas. I still don't understand the rituals and laws of Judaism and why God would come up with things like that, or allow human traditions to come up with their own.



...I think that it was to show how ridiculous a standard perfection is, and how hopeless it is to try to be perfect by man-made effort.

[Waus]

Over time, a lot of these rules become irrelevent (hence a lot of them being dropped by the new testament) and are replaced by either more flexible / practical secular laws, or are rendered obsolete altogether. It is only a slavish dedication to dogma that keeps these rules current in some diehard fundamentalist societies.

Of course, a religious explanation is that God simply doesn't have as many rules as people attribute to him, and the new testament is a proclamation to his creation to beware people kean to put words in god's mouth. Some might say that includes some of Paul's attitudes, and certainly some of the translational conventions that have been applied.

Right. The "God's laws are not arbitrary, they are for our own good" concept. I had some of the more obscure technicalities in mind when I typed that though, also references that just confuse people (see Nephilim).

The Ten Commandments seem pretty reasonable to me too. I guess the biggest problem I have is that people tend to see them as "rules to be saved" instead of "guides for life."

[Schmeltz]

The second level of morality is where secular culture begins to depart, and I think the second level was supposed to be how we act outside relations to other people. Whether what we do that "hurts no one else" matters or not.


I think I see what you're getting at. It's like religions that frown on pre-marital sex - it might be consenting, it might be legal, the parties involved might genuinely love each other, nobody is hurt or damaged by their actions, both might feel fulfilled and exhilirated by it, but it's still immoral.

I can't come around to that kind of thinking either, sorry. When your behaviour outside of your interactions with others is governed by concerns over whether perfectly innocent actions "matter," you've got a guilt complex. Why does God care if I get high in my living room while I play video games? Why should I feel bad about feeling good? This isn't an "objective moral standard," it's a mechanism for behaviour and mind control, handily exploited by generations of religious ritual specialists for millennia. I say no thanks to that.

[Ace42X]

Right. The "God's laws are not arbitrary, they are for our own good" concept.

Muslims, for example, are not supposed to even sit at the same table that alcohol is being served at. While this might seem as arbitrary and extreme to a lot of people, on the other hand they say "it is because it helps remove temptation." I was reading Al Sistani's guidelines for Muslims living in a western country, and if you accept the premises, that prevention is better than cure and that strict obedience to the minutae will stop you from straying on bigger ethical crises, you can see why they are in place.

You could argue that if a Muslim were not to get intoxicated, drinking alcohol would be acceptable. In principal the law could be flexible, but in practice its breach is not tolerated, despite the circumstances. As God is beyond "man's rules" - I would argue that it is unreasonable to hold all men to the same rules, as he can judge on actions independantly. The need to hold men to standard uniform rules is - partly informative (although it is ridiculous to think that an omnipotent being has to present rules uniformly because it is " a bit complicated to tailor it to people individually, even though he relates to all people as individuals....), but mainly so that society can prosecute transgressors easily - something which is at odds with a lot of new testament interpretations.

IE you are only saved by believing in God, not by your actions. You can have any and all sins forgiven, or absolved, etc. Just believing in Jesus is enough, because he wipes your sins anyway, just as long as you believe he is the son of God.

[Waus]

When your behaviour outside of your interactions with others is governed by concerns over whether perfectly innocent actions "matter," you've got a guilt complex. Why does God care if I get high in my living room while I play video games? Why should I feel bad about feeling good? This isn't an "objective moral standard," it's a mechanism for behaviour and mind control, handily exploited by generations of religious ritual specialists for millennia. I say no thanks to that.

Made me think of Jim Morrison. I've always been a fan of people who if they weren't going to be all-in on God they just went all-out and did whatever. I hate wafflers.
"Why not!? Why shouldn't I feel good!?" (Doors Absolute Live)

Anyways, I guess the argument to be found here is whether those actions (regardless of their impact on others) are actually harmless. The idea (like Ace mentioned) is that God doesn't come up with arbitrary rules. Just because it's not obvious doesn't mean that things like drugs, porn, pre-marital sex, etc. don't have their consequences spiritually.

I don't really see how 'religious ritual specialists' benefit from my avoiding excessive drink or something, but I see where you're coming from. I never really liked the idea of religion controlling the masses in any sense. The Catholic church (vatican etc.) has always kind of been a turn-off for me because of just that.

I've always been careful of how I conducted myself as a Christian in that sense. I have my hang-ups on things I think are wrong, but that doesn't mean I tell everyone around me what they're doing is bad for them. I'm not here to control them, and no one controls me - I make my own decisions based on what I think is right.

[Waus]

The need to hold men to standard uniform rules is - partly informative (although it is ridiculous to think that an omnipotent being has to present rules uniformly because it is " a bit complicated to tailor it to people individually, even though he relates to all people as individuals....), but mainly so that society can prosecute transgressors easily - something which is at odds with a lot of new testament interpretations.

IE you are only saved by believing in God, not by your actions. You can have any and all sins forgiven, or absolved, etc. Just believing in Jesus is enough, because he wipes your sins anyway, just as long as you believe he is the son of God.

Interesting thoughts. I guess having individual laws issued would really only deal in the specifics, and that there'd be some kind of base that those went from (that's a weird thought). The idea of our innate conscience also factors into this I guess, and conviction doesn't necessarily always come from text.

Just one thing though - and that's that from my understanding of the New Testament there's one more aspect beyond 'just believing.' While I don't really believe in literal baptism, I think that it's reasonable to say that a certain sort of commitment or departure from sin is integral to salvation as understood in the Bible.

[Schmeltz]

I guess the argument to be found here is whether those actions (regardless of their impact on others) are actually harmless.


Without hard proof that they are, it's just guilt complex. If you're prepared to govern your behaviour on the basis that the God who permitted the Holocaust will punish you for your actions, so be it. But there's no way I can accept that for myself. I don't see how anyone could.


I'm not here to control them, and no one controls me - I make my own decisions based on what I think is right.


Excellent. I like to hear it. :)

[Waus]

Without hard proof that they are, it's just guilt complex. If you're prepared to govern your behaviour on the basis that the God who permitted the Holocaust will punish you for your actions, so be it. But there's no way I can accept that for myself. I don't see how anyone could.


I don't know about that "permitted the holocaust" thing. By that same idea you could say God "permitted Adam to eat the apple of man's undoing." Really, I consider all the bad things that happen (like the holocaust) as an indirect result of the world becoming flawed post-Eden. I know, that doesn't matter to someone who doesn't put any stock in the Bible. I haven't forgotten, but it's central to my understanding, so try to bear with me when I say stuff like that.

When governing my own behavior I definitly don't do it out of fear that God will "punish me for my actions." I mean, I consider myself saved, absolved of sins past and future. What I do to make my life a closer approximation of something I see as holy is because my relationship with God compels me to. I know "compel" isn't really a logical explanation, but I can't use a logical explanation for a spiritual experience.

[Ace42X]

I don't know about that "permitted the holocaust" thing. By that same idea you could say God "permitted Adam to eat the apple of man's undoing." Really, I consider all the bad things that happen (like the holocaust) as an indirect result of the world becoming flawed post-Eden.

Then surely, if things were not flawed in Eden, eating the apple was a perfect action, in accordance with God's will?

[Waus]

Then surely, if things were not flawed in Eden, eating the apple was a perfect action, in accordance with God's will?

God's will (as I see it) was for man to live in harmony with him and enjoy creation. The apple was there because God didn't want machines, he didn't want a 'clockwork orange' that loved him and chose him because it had to. Life in the garden of eden was different in ways I can't understand, that man was conscience free and lived forever. No idea how that worked.

Eating the apple was man's departure from God's will - further evidence (as I see it) that God respects man enough to allow him to do as he pleases.

[Waus]

oop - work's out. Expect posts to be infrequent at best for the rest of the day in this thread.

[Ace42X]

God's will (as I see it) was for man to live in harmony with him and enjoy creation. The apple was there because God didn't want machines, he didn't want a 'clockwork orange' that loved him and chose him because it had to. Life in the garden of eden was different in ways I can't understand, that man was conscience free and lived forever. No idea how that worked.

Eating the apple was man's departure from God's will - further evidence (as I see it) that God respects man enough to allow him to do as he pleases.

Surely though, eating the fruit (not literally an apple, is it?) is an unharmonious and imperfect act?

[racer5.0stang]

Oh, and "in the begininning there was the word" can't possibly mean that "the world started with god reciting the bible in KJA English."

Why not? Do you think that God does not know the English language?

Despite what language He used does not negate the fact that He spoke the world into existance.

If you were to read a few verses further you would discover that the Word is being refered to as Jesus Christ and that He is also refered to as God.

What it is the time and the place for is your explanation of why you think your opinions are more respected than mine when pretty much all of the posts in here have referred to your ignorance and stupidity, logic errors and specious reasoning at least once

Actually the majority as been from you and Schmeltz, not the majority of the people on this board.

Oh yes, how did your vote turn out?

Surely though, eating the fruit (not literally an apple, is it?) is an unharmonious and imperfect act?

As soon as God said not to eat of the tree and Man disobeyed, the result of Man became unharmonious and imperfect. Man became spiritually dead and the relationship between God and Man was severed. Jesus Christ made the connection whole again between God and Man.

One big one is, we aren't really designed that well.

Speak for yourself. I know that I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

[Ace42X]

Why not? Do you think that God does not know the English language?

Considering it didn't exist then, no, no he couldn't. But that is beside the point.

If you were to read a few verses further you would discover that the Word is being refered to as Jesus Christ and that He is also refered to as God.

Precisely my point, so not the KJA Bible, then, as was the topic being discussed. As such you were using the logical fallacy of equivocation to make your point.

Actually the majority as been from you and Schmeltz, not the majority of the people on this board.

Your selective memory never ceases to depress me. Search the forum for your previous posts and say that again. Also, enigma might be a little disappointed you left him out.

Oh yes, how did your vote turn out?

Why not check yourself? Currently, a majority are in favour.

As soon as God said not to eat of the tree and Man disobeyed, the result of Man became unharmonious and imperfect.

An inability to express your argument gramatically doesn't change the fact that man must've been imperfect and unharmonious BEFORE eating the fruit, in order to have gone against God's will.

Speak for yourself. I know that I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

Yes, it is indeed a miracle that someone as stupid as you can survive.

[racer5.0stang]

Considering it didn't exist then, no, no he couldn't. But that is beside the point.

Didn't exist for whom?

Your selective memory never ceases to depress me. Search the forum for your previous posts and say that again. Also, enigma might be a little disappointed you left him out.

Previous posts? I thought we were only discussing the current thread.

My bad, Enigma.

Why not check yourself? Currently, a majority are in favour.

I was refering to the vote that you attempted to start a/b me, not the pity vote you created for yourself.

Yes, it is indeed a miracle that someone as stupid as you can survive.

Indeed.

[Waus]

An inability to express your argument gramatically doesn't change the fact that man must've been imperfect and unharmonious BEFORE eating the fruit, in order to have gone against God's will.


Hmm, that's an interesting point. I'm not sure I agree with it though. Does the possibility of doing something evil make you imperfect? Perhaps man was "perfect and harmonious" up until the point when he ate the 'apple.' The Bible doesn't say that Adam ate the apple "immediately" once God told him not to either. It'e entirely possible that there was an indeterminate amount of time were Adam and Eve lived in the garden.

I should mention that I don't think it had to have been a literal 'apple' but it could've been. Was the serpent an actual 'serpent'? Maybe those things have lost their spiritual significance since then, or it was figurative - I don't know.

[Ace42X]

Didn't exist for whom?

For anyone, at all. Unless you are going to tell me he had already created the world and its entire history before he had gotten around to it yet. Of course, that would kinda put a damper on your creationist theories. Saying God created the world in X days is a bit pointless if you then contend it already existed for him to use it to create the world.

I was refering to the vote that you attempted to start a/b me, not the pity vote you created for yourself.

Well, official votes, people declined. However, if we take people saying you are clever / sensible / right / rational / or make a good argument as a "for" vote. And people saying your posts are ill-informed, illogical, nonsensical as against vote. It's 100% against you, I'm afraid. Hardly a stirling record.

Currently I have a 77% approval rating in the other thread, as far as I can tell, of course you are yourself counted in that for some reason.

[racer5.0stang]

Hmm, that's an interesting point. I'm not sure I agree with it though. Does the possibility of doing something evil make you imperfect? Perhaps man was "perfect and harmonious" up until the point when he ate the 'apple.' The Bible doesn't say that Adam ate the apple "immediately" once God told him not to either. It'e entirely possible that there was an indeterminate amount of time were Adam and Eve lived in the garden.

Being that Eve was tempted and did eat of the fruit, did Adam make a conscience decision to fall with her?

[Ace42X]

Does the possibility of doing something evil make you imperfect?

If you define perfection as being in accordance with God wishes, surely so. A perfect person will not do an imperfect act, by definition, I would think.

[racer5.0stang]

For anyone, at all. Unless you are going to tell me he had already created the world and its entire history before he had gotten around to it yet. Of course, that would kinda put a damper on your creationist theories. Saying God created the world in X days is a bit pointless if you then contend it already existed for him to use it to create the world.

So are you saying that God could not speak English because it did not exist yet?

Keep in mind God is not constrained by time. In His existance, He is past, present, and future simultaneously.

Currently I have a 77% approval rating in the other thread, as far as I can tell, of course you are yourself counted in that for some reason.

I rather enjoy your honest and intellectual posts. I find them quite humorous.

[EN[i]GMA]

Speak for yourself. I know that I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

So you were you made 'fearfully', by God, as in he was afraid when he made you?

That's what the sentence would seem to imply; the adverb is modifying 'made', which means your making was somehow fearful, which implies that God is fearful.


My bad, Enigma.

Don't look at me for forgiveness.

I mean, since Christ's forgiveness is infinite and eternal, and mine is finite, you should just pray to him to fix your oversight, since he can obviously do it better than I can, being more the powerful being that he is.

[Ace42X]

Keep in mind God is not constrained by time.

Theoretically. As I pointed out, that makes your "7 days" belief rather meaningless though. He didn't create the world in 7 (or 6, or however many) days, because he isn't bound by time. QED. To accept that he created the world within seven days, and as such was operating within linear time, precludes him using something which doesn't exist yet in linear time.

To argue otherwise is to say "he's God, so true can be false, and false can be true with him." Which makes the bible worthless, as it can be both true and false simultaneously, first one, then the other, then both, then neither, and as such it is meaningless you putting any stock in it.

QED.

[racer5.0stang]

GMA']So you were you made 'fearfully', by God, as in he was afraid when he made you?

That's what the sentence would seem to imply; the adverb is modifying 'made', which means your making was somehow fearful, which implies that God is fearful.

Psalms 139:14
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

I was quoting a verse from the Bible.

Don't look at me for forgiveness.

I mean, since Christ's forgiveness is infinite and eternal, and mine is finite, you should just pray to him to fix your oversight, since he can obviously do it better than I can, being more the powerful being that he is.

Apology accepted

[racer5.0stang]

Theoretically. As I pointed out, that makes your "7 days" belief rather meaningless though. He didn't create the world in 7 days, because he isn't bound by time. QED. To accept that he created the world within seven days, and as such was operating within linear time, precludes him using something which doesn't exist yet in linear time.

QED.

QED?

Just because God is not bound by the constraints of time, does not imply that He cannot act within and out of the boundaries of time.

Besides if in fact God created everything He would also be credited with creating time itself.

[EN[i]GMA]

Psalms 139:14
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

I was quoting a verse from the Bible.

Their grammar sucks.

Honestly, this is not correct semicolon use, is it? I will praise thee; for I am To use it there you would have to leave off the preposition 'for', wouldn't you? Because with the 'for', it serves no purpose at all. "I will praise thee for I am" means the exact same thing.

This is the Bible you use? It's like avant garde poetry, throwing up random punctuation.

Let me try and parse this:


I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works

Marvellous are the 'fearfully...made' works?

Uhh...

[quote];and that my soul knoweth right well.

More wonky semicolon use. "works; and that" does not go together.

I'm no expert on grammar or usage mechanics. I mostly pick it up as I read, so they might be taking advantage arcane rules or something, but still, it doesn't read properly.

Is whole book like that?

[Ace42X]

Just because God is not bound by the constraints of time, does not imply that He cannot act within and out of the boundaries of time.

I never said he couldn't. However, the *world* can't. To say that the world was created in 6,7 days, but also *outside of time* is a contradiction. The two are mutually exclusive.

[Waus]

If you define perfection as being in accordance with God wishes, surely so. A perfect person will not do an imperfect act, by definition, I would think.

I see what you're saying, but I think a perfect person could have the possibility of doing an imperfect act. Keep in mind that acc. to the Bible Jesus was tempted, and he qualifies as perfect.

[racer5.0stang]

I never said he couldn't. However, the *world* can't. To say that the world was created in 6,7 days, but also *outside of time* is a contradiction. The two are mutually exclusive.

I stated that God exists outside of time not the world.

Can you define QED?

[Ace42X]

I stated that God exists outside of time not the world.

Yes, but the world being created within time cannot logically exist outside of time whilst being created.

Can you define QED?

Quod Est Demonstrandum - "The point is demonstrated"

[Ace42X]

Jesus was tempted, and he qualifies as perfect.

Ah, but he didn't *succumb* - Adam and Eve *did*.

[racer5.0stang]

Yes, but the world being created within time cannot logically exist outside of time whilst being created.

So could it be assumed that time was created before the world?

Ah, but he didn't *succumb* - Adam and Eve *did*.

A choice was made by both parties. The latter got it right.

Romans 5:12-15

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

[Ace42X]

So could it be assumed that time was created before the world?

If time were created before the world (and although all science, rational thought, common sense, and fact / logic based arguments go out the window with this) then that STILL doesn't explain how the world can be created *within time* (IE within 5,6,7 however many days) by something that will not exist on that world *within time* for millions / billions of years.

The two don't go together.

Of course, if you look at any factual evidence, then this whole thing is a joke anyway. Things cannot exist "out of time" as there would be no-space time for them to exist "in".

A choice was made by both parties. The latter got it right.

Which means the former got it "wrong" which means they were not "perfect" before they ate the fruit which act supposedly made them "imperfect" - a paradox.

[Waus]

Ah, but he didn't *succumb* - Adam and Eve *did*.

I'm not arguing that, but I'm saying that being tempted isn't sin (imperfect). Jesus couldn't have been tempted if it was impossible for him to act on it.

[HAL 9000]

If God exists outside of space and time (which clearly he must in order to be the creator of these dimensions) then it is feasible that he would have understanding of future events (as the concept of future would be meaningless) and could know 'english'.

However, this removes the possibility that humans have free will. How could god know that humans would invent english and at the same time claim that they are responcible for their actions and punish them for compliance failures (such as sin or not believeing in Jesus). Under such a scenario the only person with the power to influence the outcome of events is God himself and as such god is responcible for all compliance failures. Thus god goes to hell in a puff of logic.

[Waus]

If God exists outside of space and time (which clearly he must in order to be the creator of these dimensions) then it is feasible that he would have understanding of future events (as the concept of future would be meaningless) and could know 'english'.

However, this removes the possibility that humans have free will. How could god know that humans would invent english and at the same time claim that they are responcible for their actions and punish them for compliance failures (such as sin or not believeing in Jesus). Under such a scenario the only person with the power to influence the outcome of events is God himself and as such god is responcible for all compliance failures. Thus god goes to hell in a puff of logic.

We already went over that -

The thing of it is, I wouldn't say that our actions are pre-determined so much as God can just see things outside of time. Like, if you look back and think about something you did - you had a choice at the time, and you made it. That choice is now irreversible, so you might say that it "had to happen that way" when really it could only happen one way, and that was just the way that you chose.

So, it's still you making your decisions, and God's not punishing you for making them - you're just choosing your own fate.

[racer5.0stang]

However, this removes the possibility that humans have free will.

Why? If I tell you a joke which requires you to answer a question as a part of the joke, does the fact that I know the answer change your ability to answer or not, correctly or incorrectly? By me knowing the outcome doesn't take your ability to answer the question away.

claim that they are responcible for their actions and punish them for compliance failures (such as sin or not believeing in Jesus).

There is a debt that must be paid and God is a just God. Jesus Christ made that payment in full and is given to us as a gift. All we must do is accept it.

Many people seem to recognize God as only love and grace. God is love and shows us grace but don't forget about the opposite of those which are wrath and justice.

Under such a scenario the only person with the power to influence the outcome of events is God himself and as such god is responcible for all compliance failures.

If you come to a fork in the road and God says go this direction and you choose the opposite despite of what He says, who's fault is the outcome?

God does have the ability to influence the situations that we find ourselves in and who is to say that He doesn't. Ever wonder how people total their car and survive without a scratch? Or why children have cancer?

For whatever reason God allows certain things to occur in all of our lives.

[Ace42X]

If you come to a fork in the road and God says go this direction and you choose the opposite despite of what He says, who's fault is the outcome?


His, evidently. If he is omnipotent then he knows in advance what level of persuasiveness is needed to convince you. As God logically has an infinite capacity for oration, him CHOOSING not to be persuasive enough to convince you, consciously knowing he didn't tell you in the right way, is clearly HIS choice, not yours.

[racer5.0stang]

His, evidently. If he is omnipotent then he knows in advance what level of persuasiveness is needed to convince you. As God logically has an infinite capacity for oration, him CHOOSING not to be persuasive enough to convince you, consciously knowing he didn't tell you in the right way, is clearly HIS choice, not yours.

If He were to "twist your arm" in order to convince you, then that would interfere with our free will. By putting our faith in Him, we rely on Him and not ourselves.

[Ace42X]

If He were to "twist your arm" in order to convince you, then that would interfere with our free will. By putting our faith in Him, we rely on Him and not ourselves.

According to you he is the "truth" and "the way" and "the light." If he is so "righteous" then clearly telling people "the truth" in a convincing manner is not "twisting their arm."

What you are saying is that he is intentionally not telling this truth in a way that is convincing to a lot of people, when he clearly has the power to do so.

[racer5.0stang]

According to you he is the "truth" and "the way" and "the light." If he is so "righteous" then clearly telling people "the truth" in a convincing manner is not "twisting their arm."

What you are saying is that he is intentionally not telling this truth in a way that is convincing to a lot of people, when he clearly has the power to do so.

No but as you stated just merely telling the truth is not enough.

[Ace42X]

No but as you stated just merely telling the truth is not enough.

Ahhh, simple, simple racer. Read it again, go back and think about what was said, and come back when you have something to add.

"You're wrong, but I dunno why, so I'll jsut say something, anything to fill the space" isn't really good enough.

Clearly, telling the truth can be enough, because God is omnipotent. If it is "not enough" it is because God doesn't want it to be "enough" to save someone. QED.

That is, of course, if you make a lot of profoundly ignorant and irrational assumptions to start with. If you actually use logic and common sense, then this argument, and all of your beliefs put together, don't get off the ground.

[racer5.0stang]

His, evidently. If he is omnipotent then he knows in advance what level of persuasiveness is needed to convince you.

No but as you stated just merely telling the truth is not enough.

The truth is what it is. You either accept it or not.

Take your disbelief in God, for example. There are only two people who can change your belief, God and yourself.

[Waus]

What you are saying is that he is intentionally not telling this truth in a way that is convincing to a lot of people, when he clearly has the power to do so.

This is kind of a dilemma - you can see it expanding to a "God could fix the world, but he chooses not to" sort of thing.

I see what you're saying though, if God knows how much influence is needed to make our decisions, when he stops just short of convincing us on the right path is it his fault?

I don't really know, but I imagine that God influences just enough that we can make the right decision if we want to. Saying that God doesn't influence us enough still implies that we would make the right decision in light of understanding the consequences of the wrong one. So what if God made it completely evident to us what the right thing was to do? We still have the power to ignore it.

[Ace42X]

The truth is what it is..

No, it is what he makes it, and as he is omnipotent he can change it at will, and make it true and false at will. According to you he changes everything, time, the laws of physics, reality, morality, etc etc at will. To the "the truth" is any exception is totally backwards. As is your entire belief structure.

You have no idea what "the truth" is. You have a load of beliefs that you were told by some other people, selectively read yourself, and then parade around as superior the observable reality. Which makes your opinions sucky and worthless.

[racer5.0stang]

You have no idea what "the truth" is.

By saying that one would have to assume that you think that you know the truth. So let's have it.

[Ace42X]

if God knows how much influence is needed to make our decisions, when he stops just short of convincing us on the right path is it his fault?

I don't really know, but I imagine that God influences just enough that we can make the right decision if we want to.

Ah, but that implies that there can be a "perfect way of not presenting it perfectly" - a total paradox.

No, that still represents a failing on his part. Under what circumstances, if properly approached by "the truth" can you conceive ANYONE turning against it? I am sure that every example you can give will be that they respond in a way that takes issue with the way they were approached, demonstrating an imperfection.

[Ace42X]

By saying that one would have to assume that you think that you know the truth.

There are plenty of definitions of truth, and plenty of methods mankind have used to determine it over the course of history. Your beliefs do not resemble any definition which resembles "truth."

true Audio pronunciation of "true" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr)
adj. tru·er, tru·est
1. Consistent with fact or reality

Your beliefs have been demonstrated to be inconsistant with fact and reality. That is why, whenever we have asked for facts, you say "you have no facts to the contrary" rather than provide some.

I'll tell you what's "true" (consistent with observable fact) - man evolved from homonid ancestors, as the fossil record shows.

The world, and universe, have been created over millions of years, and not within a week, and it was done through a series of rational physical processes, in accordance with phenomenon we can recreate and see occuring in the world around us.

The "true bible" you are fond of talking to is totally inconsistant among the various editions, and your preferred version, the KJA bible, is considered to be that which is the furthest from the original texts available to mankind, and can been seen by the enormous liberties taken with transliteration.

I can go on.

[racer5.0stang]

I'll tell you what's "true" (consistent with observable fact) - man evolved from homonid ancestors, as the fossil record shows.

the KJA bible, is considered to be that which is the furthest from the original texts available to mankind

Seeing that the KJV was translated from the original texts and not from the existing English version, that makes alot of sense.

I can go on.

Please do.

[Ace42X]

Seeing that the KJV was translated from the original texts and not from the existing English version, that makes alot of sense.

Hah, no, it wasn't. Read up on the subject. Try reading up on evolution while you are at it. You might learn something, what with reading about things there is actual proof for, rather than just the words of some people you know nothing about.

[Waus]

Ah, but that implies that there can be a "perfect way of not presenting it perfectly" - a total paradox.

No, that still represents a failing on his part. Under what circumstances, if properly approached by "the truth" can you conceive ANYONE turning against it? I am sure that every example you can give will be that they respond in a way that takes issue with the way they were approached, demonstrating an imperfection.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by the 'perfect way of not presenting it perfectly.' Like, how can perfect God influence you without making it totally obvious?

Anyways - I don't know about that second part. It's not so different from understanding why people make bad decisions when they know they're bad. Even if God were to show us exactly why something were bad for us (perfectly) we might still do it because it felt good.

[Waus]

Seeing that the KJV was translated from the original texts and not from the existing English version, that makes alot of sense.


Yeah...I'm a Bible guy, but aside from wording things in interesting and sometimes poetic ways - I think that it's not the best translation.

[racer5.0stang]

rather than just the words of some people you know nothing about.

So are you neighbors with Darwin?

Or maybe one of your ancestors past down the knowledge?

[racer5.0stang]

Yeah...I'm a Bible guy, but aside from wording things in interesting and sometimes poetic ways - I think that it's not the best translation.

What would be the best translation, in your opinion?

[Waus]

What would be the best translation, in your opinion?

Honestly - if I wanted the most complete understanding of the culture, history, and nuances - probably having a working knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and reading those texts.

As an average American, I usually read the NIV, but when trying to understand parts more fully I cross-reference with the NAS.

[Ace42X]

Even if God were to show us exactly why something were bad for us (perfectly) we might still do it because it felt good.

Not really, if you are shown something is right, and showed it perfectly, you would be convinced. If, when explained perfectly, the "right thing" doesn't seem "the right thing to do" to someone, it is imperfect, logicially.

Your argument is like God saying "you can go left or right on a road. Left might seem tempting, and it will give you some kicks for a while, but you will really really hate it in the long term, and regret it. Go the other way, you'll like it better."

And because it is expressed perfectly, logically, the man who understands this perfect concept would then be in the position:

"Oh, yes, I understand, because you explained it perfectly. I now know everything about left, how bad it is, how much I'd regret it, and despite knowing perfectly well that I don't really want to, I'm going to anyway!"

That's like saying he'd voluntarily cut off his own hand for no good reason.

[Waus]

I totally understand what you're saying, and I'm mostly taking opposition for opposition's sake. That, and I have confidence in man's free will and responsibility for his own actions.

I guess what I'm saying is that our decisions are more than a product of our influences. I might decide something wrong for wrong's sake - I might act illogically.

Acc. to the Bible Lucifer was God's greatest angel before he turned. That means that Lucifer was in real contact and communication with God - there was no question about whether God was right. Lucifer turned, which to me (logically) seems like the most wrong decision ever considering he knew God was real and knew God was omnipotent etc.

[Ace42X]

Or maybe one of your ancestors past down the knowledge?

Yeah, or maybe I actually studied the world around me, and verified it for myself. Nice try, but I've seen fossils. I have done plenty of real life experiments that prove numerous scientific principles. I have seen bacteria evolving in a petrie dish.

There is physical observable evidence for my beliefs, thankyou, not just opinions and make-believe.

That is why scientific reasoning and objective facts are so important in an argument, and why your beliefs are a laughing stock. You can pick any scientific principle you like, and someone somewhere will be able to talk you through and show you an experiment that proves it. Most of them you can go out and prove for yourself. These facts have been proven time and time again by tens, dozens, hundreds and thousands of people, and unlike with YOUR beliefs, you don't have just one little book to go on and no way of proving it.

[racer5.0stang]

As an average American, I usually read the NIV, but when trying to understand parts more fully I cross-reference with the NAS.

Those aren't translations as you put it. They are merely versions of the KJV translation. These versions seemingly were created because people couldn't understand certain words like thou, thee, etc. Then people didn't quite like other words that are still used in today's language that appeared in the Bible so more revisions were made. In essence the Bible has be "dumbed" down so that people don't have to try and understand or study it.

Eventually Genesis 1:1 will read: In the begining God possibly created a part of the Earth but more than likely just sneezed and here we are.

[Ace42X]

I might decide something wrong for wrong's sake - I might act illogically.

There is a logic to people's illogic. People are wrong for a reason as often as they are right for one, in my experience.

If you do something "wrong" just because you want to spite God because how he interacts with you has angered you, clearly that indicates an imperfection in how he interacts with you if his message causes you to react against it like that.

Acc. to the Bible Lucifer was God's greatest angel before he turned. That means that Lucifer was in real contact and communication with God - there was no question about whether God was right. Lucifer turned, which to me (logically) seems like the most wrong decision ever considering he knew God was real and knew God was omnipotent etc.

See, that's not an answer, that's just another contradiction.

[racer5.0stang]

I have seen bacteria evolving in a petrie dish.

There is physical observable evidence for my beliefs, thankyou, not just opinions and make-believe.

What you are refering to is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution as you have stated as witnessing.

Since evolution is still a mere theory, it is in fact still your opinion and not fact.

[Ace42X]

These versions seemingly were created because people couldn't understand certain words like thou, thee, etc. Then people didn't quite like other words that are still used in today's language that appeared in the Bible so more revisions were made. In essence the Bible has be "dumbed" down so that people don't have to try and understand or study it.

Racer, I know you have trouble with English, as you've proven time and time again, but when you are talking about things being "dumbed down" - could you please please make even a token effort to know what you are talking about? The development of various new bibles is a lot more sophisticated than you describe, and your explanation of "certain words like thou, thee" is quite frankly a farce. I know you have no idea about the development of English as a language, so don't try to pretend you do, as you only come across looking like a half-wit.

What you are saying is factually wrong, just like when you pretended that the typeface similarity between "Fs" and "Ss" had some sort of significance to the language of the bible.

[Waus]

Those aren't translations as you put it. They are merely versions of the KJV translation.

Hmm, the wikipedia article seemed to allude to that, but more official sources say otherwise.

Off of the official site for the NIV translation - -

"The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. It had its beginning in 1965 when, after several years of exploratory study by committees from..."

http://www.ibs.org/niv/background.php

[Ace42X]

What you are refering to is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution as you have stated as witnessing.

Since evolution is still a mere theory, it is in fact still your opinion and not fact.

So you acknowledge micro-evolution is a perfectly visible phenomenon that exists, and then say "oh, but it's actually a theory."

Racer, why not read up on evolution, instead of critiques written by ignorant misinformed priests who know nothing about science, and then come back with a retort, hmm, yes?

There is plenty of evidence for macro-evolution in the fossil record. The move from micro to macro-evolution can be seen in the fossil record, the processes can be observed and predicted, and follow established mathematical models.

The distinction between the two is a myth created and perpetuated by stupid creationists who are grasping at straws to rebutt something they do not understand. Next you'll be saying "what use is half an eye?!?" and all the other bullshit that creationists try to wheel out, despite it being answered over a century ago.

You are wrong, there is physical evidence you can see, and touch. It's just wishful thinking on your part to pretend otherwise.

[Waus]

See, that's not an answer, that's just another contradiction.

Yes, it's a contradiction if you look at it from your point of view. I'm saying that if you use that to show that people (angels?) can act against their better judgement, illogically, or 'do wrong,' whatever you want to call it.

So depending on which way you interpret it, it's either evidence or contradiction. Again my beliefs go back to my confidence in the most basic purpose of life - man choosing.

[racer5.0stang]

What you are saying is factually wrong, just like when you pretended that the typeface similarity between "Fs" and "Ss" had some sort of significance to the language of the bible.

What?

[Ace42X]

Yes, it's a contradiction if you look at it from your point of view.

I'm looking at it impartially, and from a purely logical internalist view point. The idea that imperfections can arise from perfect actions is a nonsense, and can only be explained away if you do a mental backflip and over-look the basic premises you give yourself to start with.

[racer5.0stang]

So you acknowledge micro-evolution is a perfectly visible phenomenon that exists, and then say "oh, but it's actually a theory."

No I said that macro is a theory.

Besides what good is half an eye?

[Waus]

I'm looking at it impartially, and from a purely logical internalist view point. The idea that imperfections can arise from perfect actions is a nonsense, and can only be explained away if you do a mental backflip and over-look the basic premises you give yourself to start with.

So let's get the exact question straight:

How can God, being perfect, influence the world without controlling the world by presenting perfect influence?


is that it?

[Ace42X]

What?

Last time you started on your fairy-story explanation of the development of the bible, and its position relating to the evolution of the English language, one of the "examples" you gave was the fact that in victorian type-faces, the letter 'F' and the letter 'S' can appear similarly. However, your interepretation of this phenomnon was completely incorrect. You got the date wrong, the significance, and thus any conclusions that you drew from it.

You messed up, looked stupid, just like you always do when you pretend to know about something you have only a passing aquaintance with.

[racer5.0stang]

So let's get the exact question straight:

How can God, being perfect, influence the world without controlling the world by presenting perfect influence?


is that it?

MonkeyMan doesn't know what the question is. He is arguing for arguement's sake.

[Waus]

Besides what good is half an eye?

You missed it - we already argued that. Light sensing apparatus becoming more complicated light sensing etc etc etc.

[Ace42X]

How can God, being perfect, influence the world without controlling the world by presenting perfect influence?

is that it?

Kinda. It is more that it is illogical to say that a perfect being can act anything but in a perfect way, omnipotence or not. It is a contradiction in terms.

While I can accept that omnipotence has precedence over perfection (he can be both or neither), that makes the rest of the book a mockery, as everything can equally be "both true and false."

[racer5.0stang]

Last time you started on your fairy-story explanation of the development of the bible, and its position relating to the evolution of the English language, one of the "examples" you gave was the fact that in victorian type-faces, the letter 'F' and the letter 'S' can appear similarly. However, your interepretation of this phenomnon was completely incorrect. You got the date wrong, the significance, and thus any conclusions that you drew from it.

You messed up, looked stupid, just like you always do when you pretend to know about something you have only a passing aquaintance with.

That wasn't me MonkeyMan, once again you've passed judgement on the innocent.

[racer5.0stang]

You missed it - we already argued that. Light sensing apparatus becoming more complicated light sensing etc etc etc.


It was a joke, reread MonkeyMan's previous post.

[Ace42X]

No I said that macro is a theory.

You might've meant that, that is not what you said. And I still answered that.

Besides what good is half an eye?

Scroll up. One of the classic Creationist arguments proven to be a nonsense. Just as they always are, because they are nonsensical idiotic bullshit used to allow some close-minded blind fools to cling on to backwards and observably wrong beliefs.

[Ace42X]

That wasn't me MonkeyMan, once again you've passed judgement on the innocent.

It was. Just like you said monkey's don't have opposable thumbs, then forgot about it, and then tried to tell me *I* had said it, despite me repeatedly pointing you at the links showing you how wrong you are. You are a liar and a fool.

[racer5.0stang]

Scroll up. One of the classic Creationist arguments proven to be a nonsense. Just as they always are, because they are nonsensical idiotic bullshit used to allow some close-minded blind fools to cling on to backwards and observably wrong beliefs.

Do you guys not read your own posts?

[Ace42X]

Do you guys not read your own posts?

That's rich coming from you, considering your inability to remember your own arguments.

[racer5.0stang]

It was. Just like you said monkey's don't have opposable thumbs, then forgot about it, and then tried to tell me *I* had said it, despite me repeatedly pointing you at the links showing you how wrong you are. You are a liar and a fool.

Once again for the 1,000,000,000 time, it was a joke. Maybe I should start putting asterisks around the intended joke.

**Besides, who would know monkeys any better than you, MonkeyMan?**

[Waus]

Kinda. It is more that it is illogical to say that a perfect being can act anything but in a perfect way, omnipotence or not. It is a contradiction in terms.

While I can accept that omnipotence has precedence over perfection (he can be both or neither), that makes the rest of the book a mockery, as everything can equally be "both true and false."

Well, I don't see how this discussion can go beyond the point of disagreeing over whether or not people can make "wrong" decisions from an innate free will despite "perfect influence."

One thing that my professor from home (who wrote the "specious" lecture on the probability of creation) taught me was that 'God is logic.' God is a spiritual force yes, and sometimes what he does can't be explained with physical things, but I don't believe he operates outside of logic.

You won't hear me say "Well he just does!" or anything like that because I think that it all makes sense.

[Ace42X]

Once again for the 1,000,000,000 time, it was a joke.

We've been through this. It wasn't. It was a fuck-up on your part, as was clearly visible by your reaction. I don't know if, like so much of your beliefs, you just convinced yourself, or if you are a cynical liar, but I know it's bullshit, and if you take 5 mins to search the forums, you'll see it was too.

[racer5.0stang]

That's rich coming from you, considering your inability to remember your own arguments.

I really do not believe that I argued over the F's and S's in the Bible.

[racer5.0stang]

We've been through this. It wasn't. It was a fuck-up on your part, as was clearly visible by your reaction. I don't know if, like so much of your beliefs, you just convinced yourself, or if you are a cynical liar, but I know it's bullshit, and if you take 5 mins to search the forums, you'll see it was too.

That was 2+ years ago, do you think that it is still here?

[Ace42X]

'God is logic.'

I can subscribe to that, but it doesn't stop the vast majority of the bible, ESPECIALLY its interpretation as per Racerstang etc, being illogical self-contradictory crap.

[Ace42X]

That was 2+ years ago, do you think that it is still here?

Maybe, maybe not. I quoted it several times, if you remember. Each time you pulled the bullshit out, I'd refer you back to it. It is possible me copying and pasting it is still here if it has scrolled out.

[Waus]

I can subscribe to that, but it doesn't stop the vast majority of the bible, ESPECIALLY its interpretation as per Racerstang etc, being illogical self-contradictory crap.

Don't bring racer into this - I'm trying to stay out of his arguments. MonkeyMan... that's ridiculous.

Okay - so, ignoring our disagreement over "perfect influence" - what else is contradictory or illogical in your opinion?

[racer5.0stang]

Maybe, maybe not. I quoted it several times, if you remember. Each time you pulled the bullshit out, I'd refer you back to it. It is possible me copying and pasting it is still here if it has scrolled out.

I found it.

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=38845&highlight=opposable

It is post #13

[racer5.0stang]

MonkeyMan... that's ridiculous.

You have to admit, it is quite humorous.

[Waus]

You have to admit, it is quite humorous.

I won't! I think it's dumb, and it hurts your credibility in a sincere argument about what you believe.

It's a weak jab, and it's not consistent with what you claim to believe in. Joking has its place - and it's not here. Sorry if that sounds harsh.

[racer5.0stang]

I won't! I think it's dumb, and it hurts your credibility in a sincere argument about what you believe.

It's a weak jab, and it's not consistent with what you claim to believe in. Joking has its place - and it's not here. Sorry if that sounds harsh.

Look at the way Ace talks to me. Do you really think that you are being harsh?

[Ace42X]

And that (your link to post #13 in the creationist fair thread) proves my point quite nicely. Your attempt at sarcasm was feeble, and by trying to suggest that "hey, your opinion is ridiculous because you think THESE THREE THINGS ARE THE ONLY DIFFERENCE! between man and a monkey" (a strawman)" proves conclusively that you did honestly believe that man and monkeys do not have an opposable thumb in common.

Try and explain the joke to us if it is anything else.

http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=653289&postcount=136

And here you are, another thread, and dozens of posts later, still not pulling out the "it's a joke!" line. Still trying to defend your argument and pretend monkeys don't have opposable thumbs.

You didn't pull out the "hey, I was joking!" thinking until after I had rubbed your nose in it, compelte with links showing monkeys with opposable thumbs several times over.

[Waus]

Look at the way Ace talks to me. Do you really think that you are being harsh?

“Be the change you want to see in the world.” - Mahatma Ghandi

[racer5.0stang]

“Be the change you want to see in the world.” - Mahatma Ghandi

I wonder if Ghandi would change something in his life right about now?

Try and explain the joke to us if it is anything else.

Why? You didn't get it then and you most certainly won't get it now. *I have obviously offend you and your kind. Please accept my most sincere appology.*

I bet you can hold a grudge forever.

*If you ever had a girlfriend (which I doubt but for arguement's sake we will assume that you have had possibly one), he or she depending on what mood it was in that day would have a hard time being with you. You would obviously bring up something like, "Remember that time you looked left and I saw you and you said you looked right?" The rest would quickly end up as a divorce from the relationship.*

[Ace42X]

Why? You didn't get it then and you most certainly won't get it now.

Answer: You can't, can you? So you try and shift and squirm, just like you did when you first got caught in it, because you can't admit that you base your opinions on "facts" that you don't know the first thing about.

I did get your joke, I explained what your joke was doing, and showed precisely why your "joke" proves conclusively that you honestly thought monkeys didn't have opposable thumbs.

So yes, I do keep coming back to your errors and bullshit, time and time again, because you keep forgetting what you said, and the mistakes you have made, and every lie and error, and piece of crap you used in a vain attempt to justify the unsubstantiated garbage you believe.

And you KNOW it, you must do, otherwise you'd be able to answer it, without having to try and divert the subject to my personal life, like that has anything to do with the subject at hand.

Face it, racer, you're an ill-educated fool who doesn't know the first thing abotu the theories and facts he tries to argue against.

THAT's why you'd not know "truth" if it shat on your eyelids.

[Waus]

Okay - so, ignoring our disagreement over "perfect influence" - what else is contradictory or illogical in your opinion?

Ace?

[Ace42X]

Ace?

About Fundamentalism? The fact that they try to tell you the bible is literal, and then whenever they come across something they dislike tell you its a parable.

A classic is Racerstang's "Yeah, the world being created in 7 days doesn't necessarily mean 7 days... It could be parabolic..." Yeah, EVERYTHING in there could be a parable not to be meant to be taken literally in any way shape or form.

[Waus]

About Fundamentalism? The fact that they try to tell you the bible is literal, and then whenever they come across something they dislike tell you its a parable.

A classic is Racerstang's "Yeah, the world being created in 7 days doesn't necessarily mean 7 days... It could be parabolic..." Yeah, EVERYTHING in there could be a parable not to be meant to be taken literally in any way shape or form.

Hmm. Well, for one thing the Bible has another verse somewhere that mentions how "for God a day is a thousand years" or something to that effect, so it kind of sets a precedent for Genesis' description of creation not being literal. It'd be different if people just said that for no reason.

Also some things in the Bible are literal events that are also meant to be symbolic I think. For example, the trials and redemption of the Israelites is thought by many to be a sort of metaphor for the trials and redemption of an individual or man's relationship to God.

[Ace42X]

Hmm. Well, for one thing the Bible has another verse somewhere that mentions how "for God a day is a thousand years" or something to that effect, so it kind of sets a precedent for Genesis' description of creation not being literal. It'd be different if people just said that for no reason.

It is still a contradiction. A week, 6 or 7 millenia, is still totally wrong. And if you say "well, it sets a precedent" you could argue that it sets a precedent for pretty much anything. Ditto with any scripture. How are we supposed to accept any of it as factual if people are going to arbitrarily apply arbitrary values to things?

Yes, factual ambiguity in the bible does mean things can be taken in a diverse number of ways, that isn't to its credit. If you are giving people a manual on how to live, describing the nature of God, one thing you DON'T want to do is dress it up in a convaluted language with mixed messages and a network of intersnaking references which may or may not mean anything or nothing.

Also some things in the Bible are literal events that are also meant to be symbolic I think.

It's scary that God, rather than providing a clear and simple message, would fuck around with people's lives / destinies just in order to create obscure symbolism for other people later on.

[Waus]

It is still a contradiction. A week, 6 or 7 millenia, is still totally wrong. And if you say "well, it sets a precedent" you could argue that it sets a precedent for pretty much anything. Ditto with any scripture. How are we supposed to accept any of it as factual if people are going to arbitrarily apply arbitrary values to things?

Yes, factual ambiguity in the bible does mean things can be taken in a diverse number of ways, that isn't to its credit. If you are giving people a manual on how to live, describing the nature of God, one thing you DON'T want to do is dress it up in a convaluted language with mixed messages and a network of intersnaking references which may or may not mean anything or nothing.



It's scary that God, rather than providing a clear and simple message, would fuck around with people's lives / destinies just in order to create obscure symbolism for other people later on.

I meant it sets a precedent for time being a relative thing when talking about God, it doesn't really set a precedent for "pretty much anything." I think that most scripture is intended to be literal. Parables are told as parables in the Bible, not historical accounts that are supposed to be taken as symbolic.

"Obscure symbolism" doesn't seem like an accurate description to me. I think that most historians/scholars whatever could figure it out based on that text. That God would have a chosen people and use them to bring about man's ultimate reconciliation to him doesn't sound so crazy to me. Obviously it's a complicated thing to do and it's not always obvious to us why certain events in Israel's history played out as they did.

Another thing to consider is that it is in a sense a "manual on how to live," but it's not a list of rules to be followed to the tee so that you can reach salvation. I'm not trying to make a case for ambiguity here - but I'm saying that it's not a long list of rules on how to live with clauses and very specific steps for you to follow.

I don't really know what fits into your definition of "fundamentalist," but I have to admit that I'm curious if I fall into that category.

[Ace42X]

I don't really know what fits into your definition of "fundamentalist," but I have to admit that I'm curious if I fall into that category.

Not really, although I don't know the length and breadth of your views on the subject. I am sure we'll find out.

And as I said, the fact that people think that a manual on how to live should be anything other than simple, indisputable and concise is quite baffling to me. The Bible, as some sort of perfect or divine artifact, is really not fit for purpose.

[Waus]

And as I said, the fact that people think that a manual on how to live should be anything other than simple, indisputable and concise is quite baffling to me. The Bible, as some sort of perfect or divine artifact, is really not fit for purpose.

I suppose that it can't be that simple given how complex our lives are. As I recall (no idea where it's from specifically) the jewish law, as Paul said, was placed there to make us aware of sin - and not for us to follow it strictly, since that's impossible.

With that in mind, you can take Jesus' statement that we are to love God, and love others, and that is the basis of all the laws etc. That's a pretty simple guide to living life - and the rest of the "4 Pillars" (gospels) can really just be seen as a pretty understandable account of how we came to be saved.

So I guess I'm saying that the core of what the Bible is is simple, but that the rest of it is there for us to further understand God and his will in our lives.

[fucktopgirl]

God does not exist, he is dead long time ago, he is the pure creation of the human. I believe that some kind of force or energy is out there that help generated this life.Buddhism is the religion who have the most right approach toward this issue. Catholic evolved a lot around blames and sins as buddhism just put on the table the fact that WE are in charge of our own suffering and joy.

YOU created your own god , you rule your life with yours owns values. YOU are the sole master of your universe . Man have in him the most noblest and highest capacities as the most ugliest qualities, he dont need a god for telling him what to do, we have all the seed of perfection and imperfection in us. SOme may need guide lines to go trough life but there is other references to help you then religion. Philosophy is a really indispensable tool to comprehend what is happening around us. Why believing story, altho well written about some kind of suprahuman/god that created life in 7 days. We have the superhuman in us like Nietsche proclamed.

[Randetica]

i dont really care if theres actually a god
but pretending that theres something thats watching over us makes me feel better and more safe

i dont plan to ever read the bible or watching the movie pretty woman

[Bob]

i just want to say, this dialogue between ace and beck, this is nice. that's how debate ought to be all the time, really

[Ace42X]

I don't really know what fits into your definition of "fundamentalist," but I have to admit that I'm curious if I fall into that category.

I think another quality I'd ascribe to fundamentalists is their tendancy to twist facts (scientific, observable) to suit theories (their personal interpretation of the bible) rather than theories to suit facts.

A catergory you'd not fall into.

[Waus]

What I'd really like to see is just a list of things that you take issue with in the Bible.

I don't know if I could come up with an answer for every problem you present, but I could at least tell you what I think as a believer.

[Ace42X]

What I'd really like to see is just a list of things that you take issue with in the Bible.

I'd have to make notes to do a decent enough job to treat the matter with the respect it deserves, and atm I am not really in the mood for that level of commitment to the topic.

There are plenty of individual epigrams that I went "uh?!?" to, and I am sure that just like "what use is half an eye?" is mainly just skeptic talking points and a red-herring only used as a straw-man, or to bash the most lunk-headed and inflexible of dogmatists.

Similarly, there are a lot of individual paragraphs that can be explained away, and given the benefit of the doubt, but when taken as a whole, leave you going "jeez, this thing is a mess... It's all over the place."

I think my main issue is with people that argue the bible is some perfect immutable artifact of pure truth, which strikes me as patently absurd. I just cannot see it as anything other than a book, just like any other, created by men, and as such flawed. While I do not think this detracts from the idea that it might be divinely *inspired* - I find it VERY hard to believe that between all the different translations and interpretations that someone can say "yes, but THIS one we are using is the perfect definitive article. The rest, which have precedence in terms of antiquity, closeness to source documents, etc etc are all wrong."

While I kinda like the idea that, by divine virtue, the bible is "right for its time" (IE, in some obscure and unidentifiable way, the combination of events is part of some invisible master plan) - this is something that fundamentalists will have spitting teeth. Mainly because it extends to the theory that the bible isn't a book that is "meant to be followed" - and that every reaction to it (whether rejection, or complete adoption, and any shade of belief inbetween) is *right* according to an external master plan.

The bible *is* a flawed text, undeniably coloured, chopped, interpreted, translated and edited by all manner of human hands. As such, while I think there is merit in following aspects of spirit, and some interpretations of it, I think taking pretty much any of it *literally* is going to be beside the point. The LITERAL aspects of it (history, accounts of the lives of prophets, etc etc) are just so mysticised and fantastical that it detracts from any credibility, and just seems amateurish, non-awe-inspiring, and totally lacking in any divine or greater influence.

[Waus]

I think my main issue is with people that argue the bible is some perfect immutable artifact of pure truth, which strikes me as patently absurd. I just cannot see it as anything other than a book, just like any other, created by men, and as such flawed. While I do not think this detracts from the idea that it might be divinely *inspired* - I find it VERY hard to believe that between all the different translations and interpretations that someone can say "yes, but THIS one we are using is the perfect definitive article. The rest, which have precedence in terms of antiquity, closeness to source documents, etc etc are all wrong."

While I kinda like the idea that, by divine virtue, the bible is "right for its time" (IE, in some obscure and unidentifiable way, the combination of events is part of some invisible master plan) - this is something that fundamentalists will have spitting teeth. Mainly because it extends to the theory that the bible isn't a book that is "meant to be followed" - and that every reaction to it (whether rejection, or complete adoption, and any shade of belief inbetween) is *right* according to an external master plan.

The bible *is* a flawed text, undeniably coloured, chopped, interpreted, translated and edited by all manner of human hands. As such, while I think there is merit in following aspects of spirit, and some interpretations of it, I think taking pretty much any of it *literally* is going to be beside the point. The LITERAL aspects of it (history, accounts of the lives of prophets, etc etc) are just so mysticised and fantastical that it detracts from any credibility, and just seems amateurish, non-awe-inspiring, and totally lacking in any divine or greater influence.

Mmm. If I understand you right, a "flawed text" such as the Bible is still possibly "divinely inspired?" Jumping back to our discussion on whether God's influence could be anything but 'perfect' and 'perfectly convincing' makes me wonder how he could "divinely inspire" without making that book perfect too.

I guess my take on the "perfect" nature of the Bible is a bit unorthodox, but still closer to being fundamental than most. I agree with the Bible being "right for it's time" as a concept, but really I think it applies more broadly - as in, if this is really God's word and message to humanity, would he not insure that it's essential nature and most important points remained true - if not all of it?

Of course there are cults that twist scripture and create their own versions in conflict with the standard Bibles, but I would consider those people more of a "false prophet" sort of situation.

As far as the historical accounts being fantastical - how can I argue that? Yes, some of the things that happen sound pretty crazy. The problem is that if this really is God's word and those are historical accounts of miracles, how can you explain them without sounding mythic? I have no problem with things sounding "mystical" (Of or having a spiritual reality or import not apparent to the intelligence or senses). How does one establish practical credibility in the face of paranormal events?

[Ace42X]

Mmm. If I understand you right, a "flawed text" such as the Bible is still possibly "divinely inspired?" Jumping back to our discussion on whether God's influence could be anything but 'perfect' and 'perfectly convincing' makes me wonder how he could "divinely inspire" without making that book perfect too.

Beside the point, but that kinda assumes God is "perfect" in the first place, something the bible seems to suggest against, given the number of balls-ups he makes, such as having to flood the Earth to start from scratch again.

However, back to my point: "Perfect" in its effects, not "perfect" as a literary text or manual. If we define perfection as being in accordance with God's will, and that all things must be in accordance with God's will as he willed the world into existence with the benefit of fore-knowledge of the history of the world to the smallest atom, then transgression itself must be part of that "master plan".

The bible is perfect in that those who react to it with doubt and disbelief were *supposed to* and as such, it does what it is meant for.

Was the theory I was putting forward.

would he not insure that it's essential nature and most important points remained true - if not all of it?

Except it is interpreted differently by people throughout history and across the world, hence sectarianism, etc. There are contradictory "takes" on it, etc. I'd say that, logically, if it is "perfect" - it's 'essential nature' is not some constant, itself far from perfect in a flexible subjective world.

I am trying to put forward that the bible is not, and never has been, an end in itself for the hypothetical God. So if we look at the results, how it is interpreted, then what we see is contrary to any sort of universal dogmatism you'd try to impose upon it.

If you look at it like THAT, the text itself is immaterial, it is the *effect* that is important to the world, and to God. So, it could equally be a tale about pink rabbits. The text of the bible is thus important for the end results it brings about, the course of events people who have read it set into motion, how they react to the equally important people who haven't read it, etc. Paul hates gays not because it is "right" to hate gays, but because it is necessary for some master-plan that some people thing God hates gays, and some people don't, and it just so happens that the bible, in its numerous varieties, covers precisely all these bases, taking up exactly the right number of atoms, having precisely the right number of trees cut down to make it, and so on and so forth.

Of course there are cults that twist scripture and create their own versions in conflict with the standard Bibles, but I would consider those people more of a "false prophet" sort of situation.

See, that is an easy way to marginalise other people's beliefs. When people tell me how THEIR version of the bible is the "standard" or "right" one, or imply that (this perfect divine article) is closest to some sort of abstract ideal (without admitting that theirs is anything less than perfect) - then I start looking for the door. Given how distant even our oldest source texts are from any sort of *true* original, pretending that closeness to what is already a 5th hand copy provides some sort of authority doesn't really wash with me.

As far as the historical accounts being fantastical - how can I argue that? Yes, some of the things that happen sound pretty crazy. The problem is that if this really is God's word and those are historical accounts of miracles, how can you explain them without sounding mythic? I have no problem with things sounding "mystical" (Of or having a spiritual reality or import not apparent to the intelligence or senses). How does one establish practical credibility in the face of paranormal events?

But they don't sound mythic in a divine or spectacular way. They sound like cheap word-of-mouth rumours, created by people with very very limited imagination. The miracles, on the whole, don't sound particularly godlike, they sound like parlour tricks.

I dunno about you, by my omnipotent deity has a lot more style.

[Waus]

Alright fine - I'll use the quote line/argument quote line format - but I don't like it!:mad:

Beside the point, but that kinda assumes God is "perfect" in the first place, something the bible seems to suggest against, given the number of balls-ups he makes, such as having to flood the Earth to start from scratch again.

Really, I was just going on that premise because we used it earlier. I don't think it's really fair to blame God for flooding the Earth, it was man who chose to become so corrupted that the Earth was declared irredemable.


However, back to my point: "Perfect" in its effects, not "perfect" as a literary text or manual. If we define perfection as being in accordance with God's will, and that all things must be in accordance with God's will as he willed the world into existence with the benefit of fore-knowledge of the history of the world to the smallest atom, then transgression itself must be part of that "master plan".


Hmm, I agree with your opinion on God's will save one detail - I don't think that trangression itself is necessarily a part of the plan, but the possibility of transgression is. IE the lightswitch evil/not evil analogy. Like we already said, fore-knowledge doesn't necessarily mean control.


The bible is perfect in that those who react to it with doubt and disbelief were *supposed to* and as such, it does what it is meant for.

Was the theory I was putting forward.


I don't know - I don't really believe that God wanted anyone to read it and decide they didn't want a relationship with him. I think that people's reaction to scripture is still a free-will decision.


Except it is interpreted differently by people throughout history and across the world, hence sectarianism, etc. There are contradictory "takes" on it, etc. I'd say that, logically, if it is "perfect" - it's 'essential nature' is not some constant, itself far from perfect in a flexible subjective world.


If by "sectarianism" in this case you mean different denominations, I think that was actually by and large a mistake. Contradictory takes that seperate the different churches are usually over things that come down to personal conviction - and (in my opinion) shouldn't have been made into dogmatic law in the first place.


I am trying to put forward that the bible is not, and never has been, an end in itself for the hypothetical God. So if we look at the results, how it is interpreted, then what we see is contrary to any sort of universal dogmatism you'd try to impose upon it.


Agreed. God is more than a book - and to say that there is nothing outside scripture that makes up Christianity (or even Judaism) is absurd. People don't become Christians based solely on whether or not they encounter a Bible in their lifetime and read it to become convinced of their salvation.


If you look at it like THAT, the text itself is immaterial, it is the *effect* that is important to the world, and to God. So, it could equally be a tale about pink rabbits. The text of the bible is thus important for the end results it brings about, the course of events people who have read it set into motion, how they react to the equally important people who haven't read it, etc.


I can see that to an extent. At the same time the text (especially New Testament), as I said earlier, can also be used to instruct us in a pretty literal sense. Maybe you would consider that an "effect" that it has on our lives, but I don't see how arbitrary text with intended effect would work the same.


Paul hates gays not because it is "right" to hate gays, but because it is necessary for some master-plan that some people thing God hates gays, and some people don't, and it just so happens that the bible, in its numerous varieties, covers precisely all these bases, taking up exactly the right number of atoms, having precisely the right number of trees cut down to make it, and so on and so forth.


I don't think he put it that way. Paul said that homosexuals received in them the due penalty for their actions, not that he hated them. Paul hates the sin that they commit, but not the people. It's hard to argue about "hate the sin, love the sinner" with people setting bad examples all around you - but I try to follow that idea.


See, that is an easy way to marginalise other people's beliefs. When people tell me how THEIR version of the bible is the "standard" or "right" one, or imply that (this perfect divine article) is closest to some sort of abstract ideal (without admitting that theirs is anything less than perfect) - then I start looking for the door. Given how distant even our oldest source texts are from any sort of *true* original, pretending that closeness to what is already a 5th hand copy provides some sort of authority doesn't really wash with me.


Hmm...I guess what I'm trying to say is that the scriptures, the Biblical canon as we know it has been around for a long time. I don't remember what year (I read about it in a Josh McDowell book once) but the councils that decided what was recognized as scripture had the entire Bible as we know it solidly confirmed.

I'm not saying that I think that the NIV is right and NAS is wrong or KJV is wrong or whatever, I'm saying I don't think Joseph Smith can start calling himself a prophet and write new books. I'm saying I don't think that "new translations" that depart radically from the scriptures that have been around since the Bible's creation should be recognized as 'just another interpretation.'


But they don't sound mythic in a divine or spectacular way. They sound like cheap word-of-mouth rumours, created by people with very very limited imagination. The miracles, on the whole, don't sound particularly godlike, they sound like parlour tricks.


Two thoughts.

First, lots of things in the old testament went a ways beyond parlor tricks I think. Flooding the whole world, parting the red sea...you know what they are. Maybe it's possible that that's also one of the ways that translation has actually been a detriment to the Bible - losing the emphasis and nuances that the hebrew or greek lent it.

Second, keep in mind that Jesus wasn't trying to impress everyone in the sense that grand miracles might. He even tells people in the gospels not to mention to anyone what they've seen when he does things. The Jews were anxious to have a savior that would lead a revolt against Rome and establish him as a king on earth, but that wasn't really why Jesus came. So in a sense, I think performing miracles that weren't supposed to be fireworks was a way of still making his divine nature evident without sparking a guerilla revolution.

[Ace42X]

I don't think it's really fair to blame God for flooding the Earth, it was man who chose to become so corrupted that the Earth was declared irredemable.

And yet God built the world that way anyway, with the foreknowledge that it would turn out like that, and he'd have to end up flooding it and saying "whoops, Sorry, won't do it again..."

Incidently, you did mention the more judaic take on the flood, including Nephilim, etc. God having to wipe out mankind due to Angels mixing with Men or some such.

Another example of how antiquity is only arbitrarily used as a justification of the text being right. "Yeah, the bible is right because it is close to the source text, except for the bits of the source texts we chose to leave out."

Hmm, I agree with your opinion on God's will save one detail - I don't think that trangression itself is necessarily a part of the plan.

There can be no transgression other than that which was inevitable following the construction of the world, as per God's will. If he knew it was going to turn out like this, he knew each transgression would occur in advance. While he might not want people to do it, he knew it was going to happen, and built the world in such a way that it would happen regardless, even if it is a person's choice they do so in the end.

If I knew the future, and that I would build a maze, and a mouse in it would choose, of its own volition, to go to the left on the first run through, and then I proceeded to make the maze in precisely the same way, knowing full well the mouse would go to the left, then despite the mouse exercising its own free will, it is still operating precisely according to my "plan."

My "wants" or "feelings" about the path it took, whether I wanted it to go to the right instead, is immaterial because, either way, I still chose to follow a course of action that could only have the same outcome.

From this you can only conclude that it is God's will that, for better or worse, things are as they should be, because that is precisely how he made them.

Take it further - same scenario, but in it I put a piece of cheese on the "right" path. The mouse smells my scent on it, and fearful it goes to the left. I know that the mouse will go to the left, and despite knowing this inevitable chain of events, I made the maze and put the mouse through it anyway.

From the mouse's point of view, you might consider the "cheesey path" is the right path, it is a path that the creator has marked as being "right". From me, the creator's point of view, me putting down cheese is neither "right nor wrong" - I already know that it will result in the mouse going left. If I wanted the mouse to do anything other, I would not've created the maze in the way I had "predestined."

I don't really believe that God wanted anyone to read it and decide they didn't want a relationship with him. I think that people's reaction to scripture is still a free-will decision.

Free-will doesn't preclude the inevitability of events, as you pointed out. I am only asking you to believe the possibility that God is cool with the choices people make, knowing as he does in advance the paths they will choose, and laying the world out in such a way that it comes about. The people God wants to believe in it and follow it to the letter do, and the people God doesn't want to believe it and follow it to the letter don't, and that doesn't necessarily mean that either is "right" or "wrong" or closer to "the truth". Both are living out the "truth" which is their own lives, in accordance with the world God created for them.

Contradictory takes that seperate the different churches are usually over things that come down to personal conviction - and (in my opinion) shouldn't have been made into dogmatic law in the first place.

Alas, considering the inherant uncertainty over the bible, what *doesn't* come down to personal conviction? From this, I infer that, for better or worse from our perspective, each person's changing personal convictions must be "right" for them in that place and time, and "right" for the world accord to God's plan.

Maybe you would consider that an "effect" that it has on our lives, but I don't see how arbitrary text with intended effect would work the same.

Every grain of sand in an hourglass effects the position of *every other grain in it*. Butterflies flapping their wings can cause typhoons, etc etc. Clearly, logic says that the bible is "precisely the right text, that works in precisely the right way" - so an arbitrary text wouldn't, work solely by virtue of it not being the right text in the right place. My point was that the bible would have to cause *precisely* the right amount of disbelief to fit the master plan, and thus have precisely the right amount of ambiguity. Pink rabbits is too ambiguous, and evidently didn't suffice. A perfectly clear and transparent text was clearly not ambiguous enough.

Thus we get one just in the middle, so that those who were supposed to believe do, those that weren't don't, and everything occurs precisely as it should. Including the religious zealots telling everyone else they are not religious enough, and the athiests telling the zealots they are too religious, and all the shades in between.

Both think they are right, when it isn't a case of "right or wrong" - just being as best you can.

Paul hates the sin that they commit,

I was paraphrasing, my point was labelling people's choices as sinful outright, when I'd say it is a matter of personal conviction. And despite him "hating the sin" - still people interpret it in a number of ways to make allowances for homosexuality now that views have changed.

I don't remember what year (I read about it in a Josh McDowell book once) but the councils that decided what was recognized as scripture had the entire Bible as we know it solidly confirmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

300 years after the fact, in a world without the communication mechanisms we take for granted. And as the article points out, I believe, many churches broke away at this and subsequent councils, forming initial splinter sects right from the get-go. And the Pope recognises people as saints, and this and that as scripture and infallible doctrine from time to time, it doesn't mean there is any reason why I should recognise that authority.

I'm saying I don't think Joseph Smith can start calling himself a prophet and write new books.

And yet men have done. How is he different to Paul, other than in terms of popularity? Or any one of the people who came after the fact? A council of dead Romans haven't approved of HIM yet?

First, lots of things in the old testament went a ways beyond parlor tricks I think. Flooding the whole world, parting the red sea...you know what they are. Maybe it's possible that that's also one of the ways that translation has actually been a detriment to the Bible - losing the emphasis and nuances that the hebrew or greek lent it.

Things which sound like really bad fairy stories. The details we get about the noachin flood are not consistant with an account given by "the only survivors" - the narration implies omnisience which can't've been present.

Never mind the fact it is pretty much just a cribbing of Gilgamesh, a popular story of the time, and one which hits all the right notes for crude ancient fiction, and none of them for any sort of factual or historic account.

It reads like a story, not an account of the works of God, like much of the elements of the old testament.

Second, keep in mind that Jesus

The New Testament steps away from the rather crude attitudes of the old testament quite neatly, and I think that helps its credibility a lot. Of course, most fundamentalists aren't so keen on the "yah, drop the old testament, its full of shit" attitude. I think the Gospels are much stronger candidates for "divine inspiration". Unfortunately, after Jesus leaves, it nose dives again into really mundane uninspiring politics and dogmatism.

[Waus]

I am only asking you to believe the possibility that God is cool with the choices people make, knowing as he does in advance the paths they will choose, and laying the world out in such a way that it comes about. The people God wants to believe in it and follow it to the letter do, and the people God doesn't want to believe it and follow it to the letter don't, and that doesn't necessarily mean that either is "right" or "wrong" or closer to "the truth". Both are living out the "truth" which is their own lives, in accordance with the world God created for them.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. I think that that premise assigns a certain pointlessness to life that isn't there. How is that really any different from 'Do as thou wilt' considering God knows what you would do?

This all comes down to the point of not understanding how omnipotent God can allow us our decisions, influence us when he will, and have our decisions and actions matter. I just can't believe in a "plan" where God just accepts whatever we do as the result of his influence or lack of it - it contradicts my ideas on the purpose of life being "to willfully love God" among other things.


Alas, considering the inherant uncertainty over the bible, what *doesn't* come down to personal conviction? From this, I infer that, for better or worse from our perspective, each person's changing personal convictions must be "right" for them in that place and time, and "right" for the world accord to God's plan.

I think you can make a case for a number of things that do belong in dogmatic law and still leave room for personal conviction.

For instance - make the Ten Commandments dogmatic law. Don't make a strict rule on imbibing alcohol or not - the Bible condemns "drunkenness which leads to debauchery" and not simply drinking. Something like 'wine was created to make mens hearts happy.'

I think that a peron's changing personal convictions can be enough to live by if they truly strive to live by biblical ideas - in fact, isn't that what it really comes down to anyways? You can't really force someone to follow a churches charter - they will decide based on their own convictions whether that is a good guide for them.

What I can't agree with however is that whatever you decide is 'right' according to God's plan. Again we're at the point where free-will collides with "God's plan." I know I've done things that were against my convictions - everyone has. Trying to twist your feelings about something to allow it into your moral code doesn't make it right objectively - even if you can subjectively whittle away the guilt.


And as the article points out, I believe, many churches broke away at this and subsequent councils, forming initial splinter sects right from the get-go. And the Pope recognises people as saints, and this and that as scripture and infallible doctrine from time to time, it doesn't mean there is any reason why I should recognise that authority.


There were some splinter sects right from the start. Disagreement doesn't necessarily mean that they were wrong in what they believed. As I recall Paul even had a fight with Peter at one point - differing personal convictions can lead to seperation, but doesn't necessarily make either party wrong. The thing I think to recognize is that the Council of Nicea (thanks - research gets tricky at work sometimes) met to more or less confirm what was scripture, not decide. The four pillars were already in circulation and recognized, as were a number of Paul's letters. For that reason I think that any addition to scripture later on deserves intense scrutiny.

The Pope I'm not so sure on. I had a good friend who was Catholic, and a sincere, intelligent believer. We had a lot of arguments about this. I think there's a lot of things about Catholic tradition that I wouldn't defend.


And yet men have done. How is he different to Paul, other than in terms of popularity? Or any one of the people who came after the fact? A council of dead Romans haven't approved of HIM yet?


Joseph Smith is different in so many ways. He came more than a thousand years after Jesus, he wrote books that had totally insubstantiated claims about native americans being angels or something, wild claims and new doctrine.

Paul came shortly after Jesus, and had direct contact with actual disciples of Jesus. I haven't really read my "Introduction to the New Testament" that I'm borrowing from a friend, but I think all the New Testament books were written fairly close to Jesus' death - and none offered teachings that were in any way contradictory to the gospels.


The details we get about the noachin flood are not consistant with an account given by "the only survivors" - the narration implies omnisience which can't've been present.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Oh - but the similarity to Gilgamesh I don't know about really. I'm not familiar with how old that tale is - its similarities etc.

[Ace42X]

I'm not sure I can agree with that. I think that that premise assigns a certain pointlessness to life that isn't there. How is that really any different from 'Do as thou wilt' considering God knows what you would do?

People do "do as they wilt." They make a decision about what faiths to believe (what with there little evidence or proof either way, and plenty of religions to choose from). Obeying the bible is people "doing as they wilt" anyway, and using their personal preferences to justify it. My point is that the bible merely makes it possible for people to "do as they wilt" in certain ways that would not occur if it did not exist.

So no, believing in the theory I put forward doesn't amount to "well, people might as well just do anything then... It's pointless." The theory describes reality as it is, not "how it would be in the entirely unrealistic circumstances where everyone knew of and subscribed to this theory, and then used it to justify apathy." Infact, the theory expressely shows that if God wanted people to be apathetic, the bible would be different to achieve that.

I just can't believe in a "plan" where God just accepts whatever we do as the result of his influence or lack of it - it contradicts my ideas on the purpose of life being "to willfully love God" among other things.

Like I said in my description of me, the mouse and the maze - at no point does the mouse's "will" or lack thereoff come into it. The mouse's will, freedom, intellgience, drives, motives, etc etc none of that actually comes into it. If God is prescient (a function of omniscience, and thus of omnipotence) then the conclusion is inescapable.

What I can't agree with however is that whatever you decide is 'right' according to God's plan.

That is because you are trying to superimpose your morality onto the universe. The belief that the bible tells you "the truth" as opposed to the alternative, that the bible tells you "what God wants you to believe."

You tell children that alcohol is bad, and they shouldn't help themselves to it. You do NOT tell them "but at some fixed point in the future that is impossible for you to ascertain you will have developed a level of maturity when you can take it in order to have a good time, because getting drunk is REALLY REALLY fun!"

We do not take telling children "alcohol's bad!" to be some giant moral absolute that is unequivocal. And if no-one said anything different to the child as they grew up, we STILL wouldn't expect them to keep on doggardly believing that is the be all and end all of the subject.

But that is going off the point somewhat.

I know I've done things that were against my convictions - everyone has. Trying to twist your feelings about something to allow it into your moral code doesn't make it right objectively - even if you can subjectively whittle away the guilt.

Nothing makes anything "objectively" right or "objectively" wrong, except your personal subscription to some exterior code. Rules and Transgressions.

However, just because there is a rule, doesn't mean it is there to be followed. Just because someone tells you they want you to follow it, it doesn't mean they do.

Just because I put cheese in the maze, doesn't mean I want the mouse to run to it, and the fact that I set the maze up precisely in a way that guarantees a contradictory result proves positive that I can't *really* want the mouse to go to it. You might find it ridiculous to suggest I would put the cheese in for any other reason to lure the mouse, but of course you don't have the benefit of prescience knowing that *I have to do precisely that in order to have the presciently predicted outcome*.

If you assume God has prescience, you have to accept the immutable logical certainty of knowing that he created the world such that he didn't know that we MIGHT transgress, but that we *would* transgress.

There were some splinter sects right from the start. Disagreement doesn't necessarily mean that they were wrong in what they believed.

Which basically boils down to "do as you wilt" - because there is no way to know where disagreement with authority becomes wrong, is there? I doubt you'd say that "personal feelings" are a guide, and if the split is dogmatic, then the whole point is that you cannot use the text to decide.

Joseph Smith is different in so many ways.

As you pointed out, difference doesn't mean "wrong." And a lot of the people are "difference." "Love thy fellow man" coming from jesus is quite different to "but not up the bum" from paul.

Paul came shortly after Jesus, and had direct contact with actual disciples of Jesus. I haven't really read my "Introduction to the New Testament" that I'm borrowing from a friend, but I think all the New Testament books were written fairly close to Jesus' death - and none offered teachings that were in any way contradictory to the gospels.

That is a matter of dispute. I know plenty of people and articles with widely differing facts and opinions. Many people put forward that various books of the new testament have no eye-witness testimony involved whatsoever, and were written even 60 years after Jesus died, and that in a completely different country at a time when there was no Internet to publish controversial opinions that were likely to get you fed to lions for voicing them, and people seldom lived past their thirties. Yes, if you believe the bible, Paul was "in" with the disciples, smoke to divine manifestation on the road to Damascus, and as his teachings went on to become official state dogma of the Roman Catholic church (whereas the other churches often ended up being wiped out) it is not surprising pro-Pauline accoutns survive.

Of course, if you believe any prophet's accounts, then you have to accept they had divine contact. That hardly helps credibility. If you are going to talk about mormonism, for example, and put equal faith in the historical accoutns of that, then you are going to believe that his information came directly from God first-hand via gold plates, rather then being presided over by a bunch of dead romans three and a half centuries after the fact.

[Waus]

Good points, but I think we're getting closer and closer to the point where our arguments are both understood by eachother, but provide solutions to neither's questions.

I'm going home soon - but I guess I wanted to ask one other thing before I adress that previous post.

If man's free will exists, but is moot because of God's seeing the the outcome of our decisions, or if he has no free will and it's only an illusion - - whatever. If that;

Why did God create man, essentially a biological robot?
How can God accept man as flawed when man cannot make a decision to accept grace?

[Ace42X]

Why did God create man, essentially a biological robot?

Maybe because he knew, eventually, over the course of evolution preseen, including cock-ups, false starts, doctrines misread and re-read, lost and found, that through the *process* man could achieve something greater? I dunno.

Why create man at all? I'm not sure if I see what your question was getting at, or how it relates to the nature of God's relationship to man.

Maybe God likes man like I like fish in a tank. I don't care what the fish think about the swirling shapes they perceive outside their world, nor their morality, just so long as they keep happily swimming around as they do.

How can God accept man as flawed when man cannot make a decision to accept grace?

Flawed as incomplete, possibly? PERSONALLY, I take "God created man in his image" to mean that we are identical to God. Not in the fundamentalist "God has 5 fingers, and looks a bit like hellenistic depictions of Zeus, beard et al" way, but in terms of function and aptitude. I think that him accept men as flawed is him accepting that we are evolving to his position of divinity and moral righteousness, but we aren't there yet. Just like we accept the bad behaviour of children because "they don't know any better yet."

I also take the adam and eve story to be a metaphor for the point where man ceased to be an "animal" in God's eyes, and thus became accountable for his own choices.

It is not "original sin", but the faculty for self-reproachment and self-improvement that man, as a moral infant, lacked.

[Shinmeiryuu]

Hmm... I thought that Albert Einstein was a Pantheist. Oh well, 'guese I'm wrong.


By the way, great arguments Ace42X, and the rest of you. It's nice to see some intelligent people on this site.

[Waus]

Why create man at all? I'm not sure if I see what your question was getting at, or how it relates to the nature of God's relationship to man.

Maybe God likes man like I like fish in a tank. I don't care what the fish think about the swirling shapes they perceive outside their world, nor their morality, just so long as they keep happily swimming around as they do.


I see your problems with man's free will, but as an alternative "purpose," or maybe lack of purpose, it just seems like there's a lot less of a point to life. I know, not seeing the point of a life like that doesn't make my alternative logically sound.

As far as the "why create man at all" question goes - that's a question I've had myself, even after becoming a believer. Even with man being here and in a relationship with God etc. - - so what? Why? The best answers I've heard or conclusions I've come to generally relate to the innate nature of God. God is creation (just as God is logic, good, love etc.). It's a simple explanation I know, but it makes sense to me.

Flawed as incomplete, possibly? PERSONALLY, I take "God created man in his image" to mean that we are identical to God. Not in the fundamentalist "God has 5 fingers, and looks a bit like hellenistic depictions of Zeus, beard et al" way, but in terms of function and aptitude. I think that him accept men as flawed is him accepting that we are evolving to his position of divinity and moral righteousness, but we aren't there yet. Just like we accept the bad behaviour of children because "they don't know any better yet."


I don't think it's possible for God to accept men as flawed. That is - I think that (as we all know now) through Christ we are made perfect, and therefore acceptable to God. Obviously our lives still aren't going to be perfect, but J's got our backs on that. 'They don't know any better yet' seems like what God would have said while we were in Eden, and man didn't eat the fruit of "the knowledge of good and evil." I can't really know, but it seems like that would be the point where we were being held responsible for our actions.


I also take the adam and eve story to be a metaphor for the point where man ceased to be an "animal" in God's eyes, and thus became accountable for his own choices.


Now that's the first macro-evolution reconciliation with creationism I've ever heard. I like it though, and can't see why not (save for the evolution probabilities discussed in that numbers lecture). Just as God's "7 days" might have been any amount of time, man's creation could have been a long process - the Bible only having him come into being man when he achieved self-awareness.

The only thing that makes this theory a little harder to swallow is in Genesis where God decides that it's was not good for man to be alone, and created Eve from Adam's rib. I'm just saying that that kind of detracts from it being a figurative story about a long evolution.

[Ace42X]

it just seems like there's a lot less of a point to life.

Existentialism is "in" this millenium, so I hear. :)

I don't think it's possible for God to accept men as flawed. That is - I think that (as we all know now) through Christ we are made perfect, and therefore acceptable to God. Obviously our lives still aren't going to be perfect, but J's got our backs on that.

Clearly God must "accept" man as a flawed entity, otherwise he'd do something about it. If you accept that Jesus is automatically "fixing" everything, then that really comes back to "do as thou wilt, he's got your back." And while there are... Ways of look at it that would cover this, it does suffer from the same shortcomings as the theory I posited (IE, it requires a leap of faith).

'They don't know any better yet' seems like what God would have said while we were in Eden, and man didn't eat the fruit of "the knowledge of good and evil." I can't really know, but it seems like that would be the point where we were being held responsible for our actions.

You do not hold children responsible for their actions. You still punish them. Even with teenagers, you make allowances, even though you hold them accountable.

The only thing that makes this theory a little harder to swallow is in Genesis where God decides that it's was not good for man to be alone, and created Eve from Adam's rib. I'm just saying that that kind of detracts from it being a figurative story about a long evolution.

That could mean anything though. Could be a reference to the changing dimophism of the human genders (australoptithtiticean, Neandathals, homo erectus, etc fossils all show different levels of male-female differentation). Or could just be put down to the fact that nomad jewish people who have no concept of evolutionary theory simply have no way to express the concept as precisely as we'd like in a sensible written form.

As Neil from The Young Ones says "most metaphors don't hold up to close scrutiny."

[Waus]

Clearly God must "accept" man as a flawed entity, otherwise he'd do something about it. If you accept that Jesus is automatically "fixing" everything, then that really comes back to "do as thou wilt, he's got your back." And while there are... Ways of look at it that would cover this, it does suffer from the same shortcomings as the theory I posited (IE, it requires a leap of faith).


I don't think he would 'do something about it.' I think you're right about Jesus 'fixing everything' - but not automatically. It's our choice whether or not to accept that grace, and that makes it so God isn't really accepting us as a flawed entity, but instead accepting Jesus as an unflawed sacrifice.

"Do as thou wilt" is kind of a magick/occult phrase I picked up from reading about Aleister Crowley and other 'black magic' figures. The thing is that yeah - it can kind of apply in light of grace in that there are no longer consequences for our actions (with repentance).

In reference to our "moral maturity" - I think that God probably does give us allowances for lack of foresight etc. The thing of it is that he is perfect, and so (like we said) even the smallest transgression makes you imperfect and unacceptable. He doesn't judge everything you do and think "well, maybe that wasn't so bad - he didn't know", I think it's more like he just realizes that you aren't perfect and will never be. The scope of your transgressions don't matter, regardless of whatever handicap God sees fit to give you.



That could mean anything though. Could be a reference to...


Fair enough. I'm just saying that the overall concept(metaphor) is sound, but that would be the only thing that seems less figurative and more literal.