Religion: what is it good for? Absolutely nothing! Huah!

[Eor]

It is random. Just because people from such and such country all share the same characteristics doesn't mean mutation isn't random. Mutations, which happen randomly, build on one another. (not that I'm an evolutionist)

The idea that Evolution is random is false (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)

 

[Banjodorf]

Science's Evolution is based on faith. Guess what? WE'RE ALL ****ING HYPOCRITES.

Is it? Its been scientifically proven. I dont consider myself a hypocrit at all.

 

[Zink]

asdf I missed the beginning of the party
ok to start off I noticed some people talking Leviticus... that's Old Testement, people. You're a covenant behind. it's silly to assume that God created one set of laws to hold throughout all times and societies- have a little common sense, lol.
also, here we go, Eor.

Also, it isn't only Leviticus that says it's ok to slaughter or to judge non-christians: "Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah" (Mark 6:11)

This isn't close to what this verse says. Exactly: "Whatever place does not welcome you or listen to you, leave there and shake the dust off your feet in testimony against them." I'm reading this right off a hard copy of the New American Bible. Where did you get your quote?

"Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them" (2 John 1:10)

i'm not going to type out the quote every time, but again, this is wrong. The real quote has "if anyone come to you and does not bring this doctrine[the Resurrection], do not recieve him in your house or even greet him." Pretty different.

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. (Romans 16:17)

*sigh* to paraphrase my Bible, it isn't "people who disagree with you" it's "people who put obstacles in your way" which is reference to traveling teachers... the best modern comparison to these teachers is those fraudulent televangelists.

Christians are of God; everyone else is wicked (1 John 5:19)

"We know that we belong to God, and the whole world is under the power of the evil one." Simply, "the world is against us." There's nothing about the PEOPLE being evil. Just that Christians will face opposition.

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV). Spoken by Jesus himself

This one you might have had trouble with, I admit. You lack significant Bible study. Jesus often uses apocalyptic language such as "the turning of the ages" to refer to the era after his death and resurrection. Supported by Isaiah 65, 17; 66, 22. Additionally, the law he refers to is Mosaic law, not the law created by the Jews afterward.

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

What's the problem here?

"Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB). Also spoken by Jesus

You missed a few critical words here: the first words of this verse are "For Moses said". Jesus is drawing a comparison between Mosaic law and what the people actually did.

"the scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35), also spoken by Jesus

again, this is not the full verse. it's actually part of a speech by Jesus against some Jews who were about to stone a man.

Also, just as a question, when did you start to disagree with homosexuality?

official Catholic position, directly from a priest: the only thing thr Church says is men can't marry men and women can't marry women. That's it, that's all. Nothing about hating the victims, or discriminating against them, or anything like that at all. All of that hating is just from individual prerogative.

Eor, I reccomend you do some thinking about whatever source you're getting these quotes from. many of them are misquotes or fragments, and none of them are in context. Taking individual verses will not avail you unless you read all around it as well. Some of those we equivalent to hearing "don't do drugs" in school and saying the qoute was "do drugs".

 

[RoyalRook]

The only good thing about religion is to let Old ***s gain access to little boys and girls.

 

[Eor]

asdf I missed the beginning of the party
ok to start off I noticed some people talking Leviticus... that's Old Testement, people. You're a covenant behind. it's silly to assume that God created one set of laws to hold throughout all times and societies- have a little common sense, lol.

Common sense? By your definition, God was wrong. It's not silly, if God was perfect he wouldn't have messed up. Why shouldn't he have a single set of laws, if those laws were right and perfect? And if they weren't, why would be make them? Those questions arise from common sense.

aThis isn't close to what this verse says. Exactly: "Whatever place does not welcome you or listen to you, leave there and shake the dust off your feet in testimony against them." I'm reading this right off a hard copy of the New American Bible. Where did you get your quote?

I'm going to concede right now that the place where I got my quotes from where was bad. However, I'm looking at a King's James version right now, and it showed Mark 6:11 to read "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city". Which, while it could mean the same thing as what I had, doesn't seem to. My fault.

i'm not going to type out the quote every time, but again, this is wrong. The real quote has "if anyone come to you and does not bring this doctrine[the Resurrection], do not recieve him in your house or even greet him." Pretty different.

KJV:"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed"

Pretty different? No, it preaches the same thing. Don't associate with those who don't agree with you.

*sigh* to paraphrase my Bible, it isn't "people who disagree with you" it's "people who put obstacles in your way" which is reference to traveling teachers... the best modern comparison to these teachers is those fraudulent televangelists.

KJV: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them"

Cause offense means those who don't follow the doctrine. Avoid those who don't agree.

"We know that we belong to God, and the whole world is under the power of the evil one." Simply, "the world is against us." There's nothing about the PEOPLE being evil. Just that Christians will face opposition.

KJV: "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness."

That means the same as the quote. They are of God, and the rest of the world, which isn't, is evil. I'm pretty sure God wasn't speaking about the evilness of dirt and rock.

This one you might have had trouble with, I admit. You lack significant Bible study. Jesus often uses apocalyptic language such as "the turning of the ages" to refer to the era after his death and resurrection. Supported by Isaiah 65, 17; 66, 22. Additionally, the law he refers to is Mosaic law, not the law created by the Jews afterward.

Those where all long, so I admit I didn't read each word, but just by glancing at it all that he did was mentio Apocralyptic language, nothing in there suggests that he was overstating, or that he meant his death, even though he knew it wouldn't cause what he was describing.

And there is nothing in Mathews 5 to suggest he wasn't referring to Leviticus. If there is, I'd like for you to show me.

What's the problem here?

It shows that the Laws are there forever, and will never change.

You missed a few critical words here: the first words of this verse are "For Moses said". Jesus is drawing a comparison between Mosaic law and what the people actually did.

Yes, in contrast, as he was yelling at them. It's not different, he was teaching the law, showing he approved.

again, this is not the full verse. it's actually part of a speech by Jesus against some Jews who were about to stone a man.

I don't see how the context changes anything. He says clearly the scripture cannot be broken, and even when I look at all the verses surrounding it, nothing changes in what he meant.

official Catholic position, directly from a priest: the only thing thr Church says is men can't marry men and women can't marry women. That's it, that's all. Nothing about hating the victims, or discriminating against them, or anything like that at all. All of that hating is just from individual prerogative.

I meant that as a personal thing from Common, not Christianity as a whole

Eor, I reccomend you do some thinking about whatever source you're getting these quotes from. many of them are misquotes or fragments, and none of them are in context. Taking individual verses will not avail you unless you read all around it as well. Some of those we equivalent to hearing "don't do drugs" in school and saying the qoute was "do drugs".

I agree with you about that, the sources I had where terrible.

Anyways, these bible versus where only a small part of my argument, and if I'm showing false evidence please tell me, so thank you.

 

[commonyoshi]

You can't love someone and constantly kill and enslave them, then punish them to an eternal life of pain and torture. That is not love. It is as I mentioned before, doublethink. You believe both that he loves them, and will condemn them to torture for all eternity. I don't care if you say "No, he love them and hates the sin", it is not the sin that's getting the punishment, it's them.

I'll use the child-parent example again. What happens when a child steals a candy bar from a corner store? Most likely he'll have to take it back, and get spanked. Now what happens if there are a hundred children who ransack a local Wal-Mart? The punishment is going to increase for each and every one of them. Even if it was possible to spank each one, there's a need for an even greater punishment in order to correct them.

And I have no idea why people get sent to hell. I know He doesn't like doing it, even if they are sinners. I'll ask God when I die. Perhaps the reason is too spiritual for us to understand as physical beings. Who knows.

All you are saying with the Laws of Leviticus is that God made a mistake, or is contradicting. You believed he inspired the bible word for word, therefore he created those laws exactly as he wanted them. And now he says that it's immoral to follow those laws. Unless you believe morality isn't set and constantly changes, either God commanded his people to commit, and he himself cause, genocide, or he is now forbidding his people to stop doing so. Also, arguing that certain parts of the Old Testament are void contradicts your anti-homosexuality stance. And that is picking in choosing, you chose to continue hating homosexuality, but don't care if someone doesn't sacrifice a bull once a month.

When did I ever say God made a mistake or that it is now immoral to follow these laws? I dont recall posting anything that would even give that impression.

The reasoning behind detesting homosexuality and sacrificing bulls is completely different. One is declared immoral and will always be immoral, and the other is a way of showing repentence for whatever wrongdoing you've commited. However, Christ died for our sins, making all sacrifices useless. I'm not sure how you can group those two together.

Also, it isn't only Leviticus that says it's ok to slaughter or to judge non-christians: "Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah" (Mark 6:11)

First off, that's not Mark 6:11.
It's a prediction, not a command for the Christians to take. I believe this was verse was refering to the Apocalypse days, as well.

"Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them" (2 John 1:10)

Take a look at verses 6-9. John is refering to the anti-Christ who will purposefully seek to lead Christians astray. You're not supposed to help the devil do his work. Another translation would have made this more clear.

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. (Romans 16:17)

Was this a loose paraphrasing? "watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way"

Christians are of God; everyone else is wicked (1 John 5:19)

Everyone is "in control of by the evil one". But yes, everyone is under the devil's rule/curse/however you want to look at it until they become Christians. That's why it's so important to spread the word.

Even besides all of that, there are quotes in the new testament that tell you to not cast aside the Old Testament, which are quotes you don't follow.

"For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV). Spoken by Jesus himself

The was for the Pharisees who would follow the "important" parts of the law and not other parts. Jesus points out this sort of contradiction and tells them what they are doing is wrong. The Pharisees, rather than supporting their father and mother, would neglect them and give their money to God. In this way, they were neglecting the Law. Christians are still called to observe the moral themes of the Law. Dont steal, and that stuff, but we're not under the Law.

"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

Jesus said this to disclaim any arguements Pharisees brought up about him leading people astray from the Laws of Leviticus. Because he had been teaching such contravertial topics at the time, he assured them he was there to fulfill the law (as in all of the Old Testament), and not to break it. He is also warning against false prophets who will also claim to be the Messiah just like him.

Also goes with the paragraph before this, in ways.

"Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB). Also spoken by Jesus

Um, alright. I dont get it.

"the scripture cannot be broken.” (John 10:35), also spoken by Jesus

This is Jesus validifying the Old Testament's truth.

Also, just as a question, when did you start to disagree with homosexuality?

I thought it was "yucky" since I was a little kid, but it wasn't until I read it in the Bible that I thought it was morally wrong. Before that, I didn't know what the big fuss was about.

You are just preaching here. I don't care what the bible says, I'm asking you why it's immoral. If all you can say is "Because God says so", then you have to believe that it was on a whim, as there is no non-biblical reason to believe it is immoral. Yet you disagree that it has no basis, but to back it up all you did was give me a definition of Sin, which has no bearing on what we're discussing.

I must not have made it clear, my bad. I gave a reason for why it is immoral. It doesn't fit in with the perfect world God created. Anything not of God is inherently evil.

Also, something interesting I stumbled on. I'm not going to rephrase it, so I'll just quote it.

What a coincidence. I just read those two sections yesterday.
In one, Paul was using "worldly arguements" (for lack of better wording) against those criticizing against him. Some boasted about how they were Jewish, circumsized, and all that stuff, meaning they were "super Jews" or something like that, and for that reason, their word is more authoritive. Then Paul rebuttles that he is all these things and even greater. There's not much Biblical reasoning in there, just a declaration of who he is.

The other has to do with marriage, I believe. He says if it is favorable, not to marry.

So no, it's not Scripture.

 

[commonyoshi]

The idea that Evolution is random is false (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html)

"Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations."

Dirrectly from the page. Mutation is "chanced". Natural seletion is order.
Have to go.

 

[Eor]

I'll use the child-parent example again. What happens when a child steals a candy bar from a corner store? Most likely he'll have to take it back, and get spanked. Now what happens if there are a hundred children who ransack a local Wal-Mart? The punishment is going to increase for each and every one of them. Even if it was possible to spank each one, there's a need for an even greater punishment in order to correct them.

How can you possibly relate hell to spanking? If instead of spanking they gouged the kids eyes out, would you be saying that it's love? It's eternal torture. I don't see how you can view anybody has doing something that deserves eternal punishment. A hundred, a thousand, a million years, even more then that, sure. But not forever and ever. Especially since it applies to people from Hitler to people like Gandhi.

And I have no idea why people get sent to hell. I know He doesn't like doing it, even if they are sinners. I'll ask God when I die. Perhaps the reason is too spiritual for us to understand as physical beings. Who knows.

If he doesn't like it, then he wouldn't do it. If it was "a necessary evil", then why wouldn't he just change the way the universe works so it wasn't needed?

When did I ever say God made a mistake or that it is now immoral to follow these laws? I dont recall posting anything that would even give that impression.

Well, this is under the assumption that you would find it immoral to nuke Baghdad because they're Muslim. We've both agreed that God massacred thousands of people for following demons, you've stated in another thread all other religious are caused by demons who want to sway people, therefore it's a moral thing to do, because God did it. The laws say to kill Homosexuals, yet you say not to. But the bible tells you to, and you said it doesn't apply anymore. So either God changed his mind, meaning that morals changed on a whim, or God gave an immoral command to his people.

The reasoning behind detesting homosexuality and sacrificing bulls is completely different. One is declared immoral and will always be immoral, and the other is a way of showing repentence for whatever wrongdoing you've commited. However, Christ died for our sins, making all sacrifices useless. I'm not sure how you can group those two together.

You missed the point. Both laws concerning those are in the same book of Laws you say don't apply anymore. But you still hate homosexuality. Don't say otherwise, detesting something is the same as hating.

First off, that's not Mark 6:11.
It's a prediction, not a command for the Christians to take. I believe this was verse was refering to the Apocalypse days, as well.

Check my last post for all of these

"Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations."

Dirrectly from the page. Mutation is "chanced". Natural seletion is order.
Have to go.

Which proves that Evolution is not chanced. I don't see what you're trying to prove there.'

Edit: Some ineresting things:http://www.jpnordin.com/christianity/bible/hs/hs.htm
http://anitra.net/activism/glbt/bible.html

 

[AltF4]

Quote it for me, please.

I was referring to my first bunch of posts in this thread. You've address some of my posts more recently.

I guess I started it, but I would recommend against posting bible quotes. There are so many versions and interpretations, we'll get nowhere. Besides, it wasn't meant to be taken so literally. If really think you're supposed to obey it verbatim, I can't help you.



Has anyone seen "For the Bible Tells Me So"? It's a little independent film. A documentary on the religious right's systematic dehumanizing and vilifying of gays through well crafted propaganda. Very well done, was just in theaters.

 

[PaperDream]

I would like to take a side note and give a tip of my hat to commonyoshi and zink. Though I have vastly different beliefs (especially on homosexuality), I think they have done a great job of defending their faith and beliefs.

I think they're fighting an uphill battle because there are a lot of people who change the the verses of the Bible, and just as badly, take them out of context, not necessarily on purpose, but it can completely flip the most likely meaning that would be inferred when reading the whole chapter/book.

So yeah *tips hat towards commonyoshi and zink*

 

[commonyoshi]

I should be doing homework right now so I'll make this short. I'll go back and explain the otehr stuff tommorrow.

There you go. Thinking something is "yucky" as a little kid is no different then hating it as an adult. You already hated homosexuality before you became a Christian, and therefore you brought your biases with you. Again, why would you say Homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated (which is clearly in the Bible), but non-believes should? Why should gays be bared from Civil Unions, but not Muslims or Jews? I want an answer on this.

Just because the thought of it was appalling to me doesn't mean I hated it with biasedness. This is a really lame support, but I watched Will and Grace for goodness' sake. I had no opinion on the matter before reading about it in the Bible because I hardly even thought about it. (and I think I might have had a gay friend when I was a kid. He was effeminite) There you go.

And I already posted about this before. There's no reason the United States of America should ban gays from getting married.

You are still not explaining anything. You are still just preaching. You haven't changed a single word of what you've already said. You haven't explained a single thing. Again, you've just given me a definition of Sin. I'm asking for you to explain why Homosexuality is immoral, and why it is banned. Why isn't homosexuality from God? If people are born that way, then they are from God, or else God thought it was moral to **** people over forever. Unless you say it's from Satan, meaning Satan has more power then God, or that God doesn't care.

Seriously, you're constantly coping out on me. Give me a reason that isn't a vague, nonsensical description. Back it up.

I thought it was pretty obvious that homosexuality fell into the "definition of sin". Ok, maybe we're just thinking differently here. Make up some answer that would satisfy your question. It doesn't have to be logical in any way. Just give me a rough guideline.
And no, even if people are born predisposed towards homosexuality that doesn't mean that part of them was from God. People are born with minds towards sin, afterall.

You missed the point. Both laws concerning those are in the same book of Laws you say don't apply anymore. But you still hate homosexuality. Don't say otherwise, detesting something is the same as hating.

Yeah, the Law, as it is Leviticus, is void. The moral law all people are expected to follow isn't. I've been talking about two different "laws" this whole time, or have I not made that clear?

 

[Blackadder]

*Reads the debate with Eor and Common*
*Notices the homosexual parts mentioned*
*Can't resist making flame bait mini-rant!*

I was waiting for when Homosexuality was going to pop up in this thread somewhere.

I just want to say it now:
I've never seen the big deal with it. I can't see why it would EVER be considered a sin by a God that is meant to be oh-so-loving. I've never had any trouble with it myself...

A guy has romantic and/or sexual feelings for another guy. They kiss/have sex/Marry/Whatever

Whoopdey-****in'-doo.
It's no different than doing any of those thing with the opposite sex, in essence. Really, really think about it.
Is it truly that bad that someone likes another man? In all honesty can you say you think it's wrong and evil?

Never gotten the big deal over it myself. I just wanted to say all that, maybe start up a bit of a neat debate on it, though I honestly just wanted to point out that it doesn't matter if someone is gay at all. With a question though, as someone who has never even bothered to really check out the bible, some say it never states being gay is wrong in black and white anyways. Anyone got the passage or whatever that condemns it? I’ve always wanted to see it…

Chika chika boow boww!

 

[Air Marshall Fiddy Cent]

Y'all foos is crazee, ya hear? let people have they religion and stop tryna lower people that believe (assumin youse an atheist) or disbelieve (assumin youse is religious)...

imma live life my way.....or die tryin

 

[Bedi Vegeta]

With a question though, as someone who has never even bothered to really check out the bible, some say it never states being gay is wrong in black and white anyways. Anyone got the passage or whatever that condemns it? I’ve always wanted to see it…

Here's a New Testament reference for those who were picking at the validity Old Testament Laws:

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

 

[pikachun00b7]

Yeah, and maybe the baby is the next Hitler. You have no way of knowing.

Does that mean he is not worth living? Who are you to say that?

Furthermore, the original point was due about extinction, but I will address your point.

People aren't worth anything. People aren't quantitative goods. People aren't dollars, so stop addressing human potential as a tangible, measurable thing. Some people grow up to be Doctors, some grow up and become Janitors.

I do not care if he is a scientist, politicization, or bum. The fact is they are wort something. But I am talking about the value of life. Your thoughts, opinions, personality, free will, etc. These are valuable. It makes you who you are, and only death can take from from you.

If gay people have sex, Doctors aren't going to get wiped off the face of the earth, while Janitors flourish. There will be almost no change in the world because one dude wants to plug another dude, and to think otherwise is absolutely ridiculous.

No, I mean there is might be one less person that could have possibly have been born. it doesn't matter who he/she is.
"almost?" If I kill a man, I only take some 1/six billion. If I kill a million people, I would kill 1/6000 peoples. If I kill 1+1/2 billion peoples, it is only 1/4. Sin is not measurable. No matter how small it is, it is still a sin.

The fact of the matter is, there is A LOT of people on this planet as is, and there doesn't need to be more. We are already ****** our natural resources in the ***. I can't imagine what that would be like with even 10% more people (600 million, roughly).

Also, last time I checked, their are plenty of parent-less orphans.

O RLY?

So let us kill a couple billion people, so we can eat more. We could start with
the orphans you were talking about. Because Mass killing of people is the answer. Good luck with that.

I wouldn't have a problem with this if it weren't for the fact that the Bible is the word of God, according to some dude that wrote it.

Also, the Bible is basically God's blog. He should probably update it, I mean, it has been thousands of years.

A bit off topic. But yes, it has not been updated in 1700 years. We could have dodged some hot- button debates if there was an EXPLANATION in bible passages. The Christian stance is mostly come up by debates like this. There is only a few passages about homosexuality, since it was not common at this time.

 

[Jammer]

Eor, I think you have a preconceived notion of who God is and what He's like (if there is a God), and I think you're judging what people say about God as right or wrong depending on your own values. It doesn't work like that, of course. God is what He is, not what you think He should be. "Common sense" does not really apply to God; "logic" does, so that God doesn't totally confuse us, but God doesn't have to be logical if he doesn't want to.

Maybe if you stopped saying, "No--that can't be right. A perfect God wouldn't do that," and started thinking a little more deeply, you would find some interesting stuff. Also, you quote a lot of scripture, but it seems like you never really read a Bible. While the Bible can be extremely boring, you might like to read it.

Of course, it's not just you, Eor, who has biases and preconceived notions and whatnot--we all do. I just think you're the most likely (in this thread) to really try to look for the truth, whatever it is.

 

[AltF4]

Saying that god doesn't have to obey logic is a cop out. It's just a way of saying "what we believe in doesn't really make sense... but we do our best to ignore that fact".

If you are unwilling to accept the axioms of logic, then there is no use talking to you.


Also, who says that YOUR interpretation of the bible is correct Jammer? Do you know how many different versions of the book there are? And how many interpretations there are of each version? Don't pretend like there is one "correct" interpretation that happens to be yours. And why do you think yours is correct? Because that's what your parents told you, no doubt.

A quick raise of hands:
How many people here share the same religion as their parents?

*not me*

 

[Sliq]

Does that mean he is not worth living? Who are you to say that?

I can't believe how ridiculous this is about to get.

I do not care if he is a scientist, politicization, or bum. The fact is they are wort something. But I am talking about the value of life. Your thoughts, opinions, personality, free will, etc. These are valuable. It makes you who you are, and only death can take from from you.

Death and not being born are 2 COMPLETELY different things, mostly because you can't see the ****ing future and know who would and would not have been born had certain events occured or not. You have to ASSUME these things, and assumptions that are not based off of evidence do not belong in a debate.

No, I mean there is might be one less person that could have possibly have been born. it doesn't matter who he/she is.
"almost?" If I kill a man, I only take some 1/six billion. If I kill a million people, I would kill 1/6000 peoples. If I kill 1+1/2 billion peoples, it is only 1/4. Sin is not measurable. No matter how small it is, it is still a sin.

I fail to see how someone not being born is equated to murder. I'm pretty sure the amount of people not being born greatly out ways the amount of people being born, mostly because I'm fairly certain the number of people that don't exist greatly outweigh those that do. If ever there is a rift in the space time continuum that creates a wormhole through which those individuals whom do not exist are able to cross into existence, we will ****ed. They will conquer the world with the shear volume of the non-existant people.

Seriously, are you high? This is a ****ing ridiculous argument. You are arguing that a person not being born--without any direct interference at all--is the same as murder, which means I have to find out who you are and where you live so I can avoid meeting you, because you are bat**** insane.

O RLY?

So let us kill a couple billion people, so we can eat more. We could start with
the orphans you were talking about. Because Mass killing of people is the answer. Good luck with that.

Seriously, stay the **** away from me.

 

[PaperDream]

If I kill a man, I only take some 1/six billion. If I kill a million people, I would kill 1/6000 peoples. If I kill 1+1/2 billion peoples, it is only 1/4. Sin is not measurable. No matter how small it is, it is still a sin.

The fact of the matter is, there is A LOT of people on this planet as is, and there doesn't need to be more. We are already ****** our natural resources in the ***. I can't imagine what that would be like with even 10% more people (600 million, roughly).

Also, last time I checked, their are plenty of parent-less orphans.

O RLY?

So let us kill a couple billion people, so we can eat more. We could start with
the orphans you were talking about. Because Mass killing of people is the answer. Good luck with that.

Where did Sliq say mass murder was ok? I didn't see it, and I never detected they insinuated it was ok either.

Oh and before you answer that, you might want to realize that by your logic, mass murder really isn't that bad, about as bad as lying about your favorite color. (you did say sin is not measurable)

Congratulations pikachun00b7, for your inability to read and comprehend what people are saying, and for implying that other people suggested things that they clearly did not, I no longer take you seriously. Your beliefs and arguments probably had a small role as well.

 

[Eor]

Just because the thought of it was appalling to me doesn't mean I hated it with biasedness. This is a really lame support, but I watched Will and Grace for goodness' sake. I had no opinion on the matter before reading about it in the Bible because I hardly even thought about it. (and I think I might have had a gay friend when I was a kid. He was effeminite) There you go.And I already posted about this before. There's no reason the United States of America should ban gays from getting married.

My own personal view on the whole Homosexual debate is that people bring their biasness over with them, and then find quotes in the Bible to support themselves. However, I must have forgotten that you don't want America to ban gays from getting married.

I thought it was pretty obvious that homosexuality fell into the "definition of sin". Ok, maybe we're just thinking differently here. Make up some answer that would satisfy your question. It doesn't have to be logical in any way. Just give me a rough guideline.
And no, even if people are born predisposed towards homosexuality that doesn't mean that part of them was from God. People are born with minds towards sin, afterall.

An answer that would satisfy me that Homosexuality was sinful? Proof that it caused harm to both of them, proof that Homosexuality led to a sustantial increase in crime, proof that homosexuality could spread and force the human race to go instinct (you did say I could list nonlogical things), proof that Homosexuals become so through a pact with Satan, proof that Homosexuals where constantly struck down by God, proof that Homosexual relationships cause harm to others.

Yeah, the Law, as it is Leviticus, is void. The moral law all people are expected to follow isn't. I've been talking about two different "laws" this whole time, or have I not made that clear?

You have, I just can't see a difference in those laws. I see the Leviticus quote as being part of the Laws of Leviticus, I don't see why it wouldn't be void like the rest, there is just about no difference inbetween them. If you could list a quote to support your idea (or fact, perhaps) that Jesus didn't void the homosexuality part, or that there are, very clearly, two seperate parts of the laws, and that jesus only voided one part, then I'll see where you're coming from.

Eor, I think you have a preconceived notion of who God is and what He's like (if there is a God), and I think you're judging what people say about God as right or wrong depending on your own values. It doesn't work like that, of course. God is what He is, not what you think He should be. "Common sense" does not really apply to God; "logic" does, so that God doesn't totally confuse us, but God doesn't have to be logical if he doesn't want to.

My view of a God is that he should be moral. I'm not arguing that God doesn't exist here, I'm arguing against a literal interpretation of the Bible. In the Bible God constantly contradicts his own Moral Laws. You can say "Well, he's God, so they don't count!", but then you'd have to realize that if someone else acted just like God did, we'd condemn them to hell. All your post did was say that I'm wrong because God can't be wrong, but parts of the Bible show him being wrong by his own standards.

My only view of God is that he is perfect and completely moral, that he doesn't send others to hell just because they don't believe in him, that Hell isn't forever but instead is based off of how bad of a life you lived, and that God doesn't have a working hand in our life right now, but instead watches above. I'd like for someone to find a moral problem in what I've said, minus the last part, but I doubt anyone could argue otherwise. If there is no moral problems with it, then that is how God should be, as it is a perfect form. He is non-biased, tolerant, forgiving, and equal, as well as all loving.

Maybe if you stopped saying, "No--that can't be right. A perfect God wouldn't do that," and started thinking a little more deeply, you would find some interesting stuff.

..such as? If the God of the Bible says "Don't murder", then slaughters Soddom and Gamorah (I know I spelled those wrong), then says "Don't Judge", well, one of those has to be wrong. A truth can't override another truth. In the Bible, God preaches love more then he does massacre. It is more likely, then, that the Bible has been corrupted by Man, like everything else in the world, and they have changed and morphed the Bible to fit what they wanted, turning converts away and causing a decline in religion.

Also, you quote a lot of scripture, but it seems like you never really read a Bible. While the Bible can be extremely boring, you might like to read it.

I've never read the Bible cover from cover, but I have read chunks of it. I use to go to Sunday School for around 13 years. I'm definitely no expert on it, but I'm not just flipping through pages here. I do plan on taking a course on Abrahamic religions at college, though, if I can find one.

 

[Jammer]

Eor, God isn't held by the same standards as humans. He says "don't murder" and "don't judge". Why does he tell us that? Because we're mere humans and we can't be trusted to do the right thing.

God knew what was in the hearts of the people in Sodom and Gomorrah. He saw how evil they were. He judged them. He is the judger--humans aren't. We aren't able to truly see someone's heart. You can't compare us to God in this respect. When he destroyed the cities and killed all the people, he wasn't murdering--he was carrying out his judgement.

Again, God has a whole different set of rules than humans. In fact, he has no rules. It''s okay, because everything he does is perfect. It's hard to make a positive proof of this, but I'm sure if you could come up with more stories like Sodom and Gomorrah, I could show how God was acting appropriately.

 

[Eor]

Jammer, preaching gets no one anywhere. The God of you and the Bible is a ****. He kills and asks his people to slaughter and **** enemies. He orders the death of infants. And your answer is "He's perfect because he is". It's a loop. If he was perfect, he would act perfect. Why would he design us incapable of understand morals, if he wants us to be moral people? God didn't act appropriately by killing the entire town, he acted in a rash and jerkish manner.

Don't tell me "God is outside our morals", which means nothing more then God can act however the hell he wants and you'll still defend him. The Bible lies, the bible contradicts, the Bible has been translated multiple times, the books of the bible where chosen at whim by a council as to which ones should be considered Cannon, and has multiple versions that change the scriptures to how they want. The Bible says God is moral, and tells us to love our neighbors. Other parts contradict it. Like I said, if you hold the Bible to be correct, two different truths cannot both be true.l

And for my personal belief, I don't believe in God, and I never thought the Bible was a bastion of morality. I have my own morals, and even if tomorrow Jesus Christ came down and told me to kill Muslims, I'd tell him he was a ****. And he would be.

 

[Jammer]

Eor, you also have to remember that the God in the Old Testament, while the same one as in the New Testament, has drastically changed the way he does business. He no longer has to make his people be a strong military force in order to secure its survival.

He never acts "rash and jerkish". He saw that the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were purely evil, and he only killed them after repeated warnings.

I wouldn't defend God no matter what. It's just that He hasn't done anything that would make me not want to defend him.

Also, if you're talking about the Old Testament contradicting the New Testament, that's because it's supposed to. In the New Testament, God gets rid of His old plan, and starts his new, perfect plan. The Old Testament is more of a history book than actual instructions.

You say the Bible contradicts itself. What specifically are you talking about?

EDIT: When I say the Old Testament contradicts the New Testament, I mean that in a different sense than the other time I used "contradicts" in this post. The New Testament more replaces the Old Testament, while retaining the Old Testament's usefulness.

 

[PukeTShirt]

I would like to thank everyone for keeping on topic and staying relatively respectful to each other! This is how real debates should be.

And Eor, I stand behind everything you've said. I can't believe in a "perfect" creator, who is all knowing, all loving but still sends people to hell to suffer FOREVER.

I would also like an answer to this. If god is all-knowing, then he knows how your life is going to play out before he creates it right? If that is true, then he is creating people will the knowledge that he is going to be sending them to hell! How loving is that? And if you are going to argue that god gave us free will, and that he doesn't actually know how we are going to live our lives, then you cannot reasonably conclude that he is PERFECT and ALL-KNOWING. I personally do NOT believe that I should be living a life of servitude to a being who logically makes mistakes and isn't actually in control.

 

[AltF4]

(To Jammer) That right there!

The concept of a perfect being changing his mind is inherently contradictory. Don't you see that? If he was perfect, the first plan would have been perfect off the start.

A side note: Do you believe that god is capable of contradiction? Or is god himself bound by the laws of logic?

Can god make a round square? A square is by definition not round, a round square is contradictory. You cannot even conceive of what a round square would look like because it is so contradictory. Can god make one?

It's a lose-lose for you. Either you deny the axioms of logic, undermining the foundation of causality, or you deny god's omnipotence.

 

[Eor]

Eor, you also have to remember that the God in the Old Testament, while the same one as in the New Testament, has drastically changed the way he does business. He no longer has to make his people be a strong military force in order to secure its survival.

He never would have, he shouldn't have to be forced to do anything.

He never acts "rash and jerkish". He saw that the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were purely evil, and he only killed them after repeated warnings.

He slaughtered entire towns, drowned the world to kill thousands, and commanded his people to slaughter towns and ****. He condems people to an eternity of suffering for not believing in him, no matter how good they are. That's being a jker

I wouldn't defend God no matter what. It's just that He hasn't done anything that would make me not want to defend him.

I don't see how you can say that, you've already said that if God does something that seems to be outside of Morals, it's ok for him because he knows whats best.

Also, if you're talking about the Old Testament contradicting the New Testament, that's because it's supposed to. In the New Testament, God gets rid of His old plan, and starts his new, perfect plan. The Old Testament is more of a history book than actual instructions.

You say the Bible contradicts itself. What specifically are you talking about?

It was mainly the old vs new testament, plus a few other, small linear things I don't have memorized, but the thing is, why would God start out with and imperfect plan, then, after thousands of years, finally change to a perfect one? It implies that God failed. I'm going to assume that you'll say it wasn't god that failed but us, but us that failed God, but that doesn't make sense. What have we've done different from then?

EDIT: When I say the Old Testament contradicts the New Testament, I mean that in a different sense than the other time I used "contradicts" in this post. The New Testament more replaces the Old Testament, while retaining the Old Testament's usefulness.

I understand

 

[Jammer]

PukeTShirt, I don't understand how God can't be all-knowing AND have given us free will. I don't see how knowing what decision someone will make means they didn't really make the decision themselves.

Also, God isn't all-loving. He hates, mainly, sin, and people who are covered in sin. It's Jesus, mostly, who is all-loving. But God is the one who decides if we go to Heaven or Hell, not Jesus. And He sends sinners to hell.

 

[Jammer]

(To Jammer) That right there!

The concept of a perfect being changing his mind is inherently contradictory. Don't you see that? If he was perfect, the first plan would have been perfect off the start.

He never "changed His mind". He knew, before He created the world, that he would have the whole Abraham and Moses thing, and He knew that He would eventually send his Son down to die on the cross, and that the New Testament Covenant would come into effect. He had it all planned out.

He didn't fail. He succeeded.

 

[AltF4]

I don't see how knowing what decision someone will make means they didn't really make the decision themselves.

Do you want me to go on a really long physics tangent describing why that's not true? Free will is a really sticky subject, it violates causality. Long story short: It would be a contradiction to be able to deduce the choices of free will.

(read my question that I underlined a post or two back. The one about contradictions.)

 

[PukeTShirt]

PukeTShirt, I don't understand how God can't be all-knowing AND have given us free will. I don't see how knowing what decision someone will make means they didn't really make the decision themselves.

Because free will dictates that we decide what we are going to do based on our own decisions. God being all-knowing however, dictates that no matter what we do, he already knows what's going to happen. The two ideas are mutually exclusive, and CANNOT go hand in hand. If god IS all-knowing, we really don't have free will, just the illusion of it, since god already knows what you are going to do, and is going to judge you for it. If god really did give us free will, then for it to truly be free will, we can do whatever we want. Therefore, god doesn't know what we are going to do, negating the idea that he is ALL-knowing. It's just logic.

 

[AltF4]

Wait, Jammer. You seemed to know a bit about Quantum Mechanics from the Interesting Facts thread. You should already know that the ability to deduce the future (an omniscient being) equates to determinism, which is mutually exclusive with free will. Or maybe you didn't mean to post what you did?


Plus, I really want to hear people's opinions on this:

Do you believe that god is capable of contradiction? Or is god himself bound by the laws of logic?

Can god make a round square? A square is by definition not round, a round square is contradictory. You cannot even conceive of what a round square would look like because it is so contradictory. Can god make one?

It's a lose-lose for you. Either you deny the axioms of logic, undermining the foundation of causality, or you deny god's omnipotence.

An equivalent question (though more clever): "Can god make a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" Yes or no, it means god is not omnipotent. The only way to keep god's omnipotence is to break the laws of logic.

 

[Jammer]

He slaughtered entire towns, drowned the world to kill thousands, and commanded his people to slaughter towns and ****.

Just so you know, God was very specific that the Israelites were not to **** or even have sex with people whom they were conquering, unless the outsider had gone through an elaborate indoctrination ceremony thing. He wanted to keep the Israelites isolated from bad external influence.

And the only towns He slaughtered were those who were extremely evil and weren't going to repent. He always warned them before, though, and many towns repented, like Nineveh. Although Jonah wanted Nineveh to be blasted out of existance, God said that they had repented, and he had forgiven them.

I don't see how you can say that, you've already said that if God does something that seems to be outside of Morals, it's ok for him because he knows whats best.

Exactly. God knows best. This is probably why we're having an argument: You need proof that God is doing the right thing, and I don't. You could say that makes me not a critical thinker, but I'm not sure.

It was mainly the old vs new testament, plus a few other, small linear things I don't have memorized, but the thing is, why would God start out with and imperfect plan, then, after thousands of years, finally change to a perfect one? It implies that God failed. I'm going to assume that you'll say it wasn't god that failed but us, but us that failed God, but that doesn't make sense. What have we've done different from then?

Yeah, it was His plan all along. Nobody failed--everyone did what was supposed to happen. Adam and Eve were supposed to sin, all the way up to Jesus being born to save us from our sins. The Old Testament makes many, many very specific references to the coming of Jesus. The Perfect Plan involved sin being introduced into the world, then Jesus coming to save us from it if we let Him.

Remember, a thousand years is like a day to God (and a day is like a 1000 years), so the fact that the "imperfect" part of the plan lasted so long means nothing.



I understand[/QUOTE]

 

[Eor]

PukeTShirt, I don't understand how God can't be all-knowing AND have given us free will. I don't see how knowing what decision someone will make means they didn't really make the decision themselves./QUOTE]

Because that means that everything is planned out. It means that God already knows what's going to happen to me, meaning that it is destined, and that I have no choice in the matter.

You can also debate with God having free will on this. He has free will, but he also knows everything thats going to happen, which means he knows what he's going to do, meaning he can't change it, and therefore doesn't have free will. If he was to change it, then he wouldn't have foreseen it.

 

[Jammer]

Okay, God is not a physical being. He is not bound by quantum mechanics. He can travel around time however he wants.

Let's say that there was no God, and everyone had free will. Okay so far? Now someone builds a time machine, and goes back in time. He knows what people will do after the time he goes back to, right? Does that mean that they have no free will all of a sudden?

God is the guy in the time machine.

 

[Eor]

Just so you know, God was very specific that the Israelites were not to **** or even have sex with people whom they were conquering, unless the outsider had gone through an elaborate indoctrination ceremony thing. He wanted to keep the Israelites isolated from bad external influence.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers 31;&version=31;

And the only towns He slaughtered were those who were extremely evil and weren't going to repent. He always warned them before, though, and many towns repented, like Nineveh. Although Jonah wanted Nineveh to be blasted out of existance, God said that they had repented, and he had forgiven them.

What, you think an entire town, every single person in it, was evil? That there weren't good people in that town, that they where all dark and villainousness? Even if not, God slaughtered thousands who were evil, but why doesn't he do this today? It'd save a lot of trouble.

And, personally, I don't believe the best course of action for an evil town is to slaughter everyone inside of it. Nor do I believe it's possible for thousands of people to be evil, and for not one of them to want to repent when shown that their is a Deity, and that he is going to slaughter all of them and send them to hell is they don't. It defies everything in Human nature.

Exactly. God knows best. This is probably why we're having an argument: You need proof that God is doing the right thing, and I don't. You could say that makes me not a critical thinker, but I'm not sure.

You just said you wouldn't necessarily defend him no matter what, but here you are saying that you would, because he can do no wrong. Yes, as a non-believer I do need proof that God is really perfect, and when the only proof is that he says so, then I don't think it's logical to believe so. When I was a Christian, I believed he was perfect, but I didn't believe everything in the Bible, because it did not show him as being perfect.

Yeah, it was His plan all along. Nobody failed--everyone did what was supposed to happen. Adam and Eve were supposed to sin, all the way up to Jesus being born to save us from our sins. The Old Testament makes many, many very specific references to the coming of Jesus. The Perfect Plan involved sin being introduced into the world, then Jesus coming to save us from it if we let Him.

You missed the point. Why would he wait so long? Why would he wait at all? Why couldn't he just create the best covenant from the beginning, instead of creating an imperfect one first? There is no reason for him to have done it.

Remember, a thousand years is like a day to God (and a day is like a 1000 years), so the fact that the "imperfect" part of the plan lasted so long means nothing.

Except for the thousands of people who lived under and where instructed in imperfect laws.

Now someone builds a time machine, and goes back in time. He knows what people will do after the time he goes back to, right? Does that mean that they have no free will all of a sudden?

There is a huge difference. If a person knows how everything is going to play out means nothing, because things can still change. If the guy goes back in time and decides to kill Hitler, causing no WWII to happen, that's free will. That's the difference, that person wouldn't be all knowing. God is, meaning that he knows exactly how everything is going to play out, every hand gesture to murder to salvation, he knows. you can't be all knowing and also have free will, because they cancel themselves out. You might be able to see the result of every choice you make, but you can't know exactly what choice you will make.

That's pretty muddled, but I hope you can get what I'm saying from it. Basically, I take offense that my life isn't my choice, but instead my choices have already been made, and that I can't change it.

 

[Jammer]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers 31;&version=31;



What, you think an entire town, every single person in it, was evil? That there weren't good people in that town, that they where all dark and villainousness? Even if not, God slaughtered thousands who were evil, but why doesn't he do this today? It'd save a lot of trouble.

And, personally, I don't believe the best course of action for an evil town is to slaughter everyone inside of it. Nor do I believe it's possible for thousands of people to be evil, and for not one of them to want to repent when shown that their is a Deity, and that he is going to slaughter all of them and send them to hell is they don't. It defies everything in Human nature.

Yes, Moses told them to "save for yourselves every women who has not slept with a man". But remember: God wanted them to kill everyone. Moses was angry with them for not killing the women and children. The Israelites were disobeying God, which happens extremely often in the Bible.

Do you know the story of Jericho? There was a women in it who believed in God or something. Before invading the city and killing everyone, the Israelites got her and her family out of there. So God did pay attention to the one person who was not evil.

It is not for us to decide whether someone will repent or not. Only God knows. I don't want this to sound rude, but possibly you will never, ever become a Christian again no matter what. But I don't know. Only God does.

You just said you wouldn't necessarily defend him no matter what, but here you are saying that you would, because he can do no wrong. Yes, as a non-believer I do need proof that God is really perfect, and when the only proof is that he says so, then I don't think it's logical to believe so. When I was a Christian, I believed he was perfect, but I didn't believe everything in the Bible, because it did not show him as being perfect.

God is perfect in a different way then most people imagine him to be. I don't know how to explain it, besides saying that your idea of God just doesn't match the actual God (assuming He exists).

Man, I don't know how to explain this. Sorry.

You missed the point. Why would he wait so long? Why would he wait at all? Why couldn't he just create the best covenant from the beginning, instead of creating an imperfect one first? There is no reason for him to have done it.

[Jammer saying that time doesn't matter to God]

Except for the thousands of people who lived under and where instructed in imperfect laws.

Ah, excellent point. I don't know how to answer that. I'll get back to you when I can.

There is a huge difference. If a person knows how everything is going to play out means nothing, because things can still change.

How could it change? If you're alive now, you cannot possibly go back in time and kill your grandpa, because then you won't be alive to have done it. This leads to a paradox which makes me think that time travel is impossible, or at least the world will end before we develop it.

Also, if you know how everything is going to play out, things can't change, because you'll know what really happens in the end. While humans might not be able to work within our physical system to know the objective reality, God can.

 

[AltF4]

Don't get into time travel hypotheticals. It's waaaaaay out of topic. Suffice it to say that the kind of time travel you're talking about is impossible on every level.

*sigh* I feel so ignored again. Do I pose too compelling of questions? Or am I just invisible in this thread?

 

[Jammer]

Don't get into time travel hypotheticals. It's waaaaaay out of topic. Suffice it to say that the kind of time travel you're talking about is impossible on every level.

Heh, even for God?

*sigh* I feel so ignored again. Do I pose too compelling of questions? Or am I just invisible in this thread?

Which questions are these?

If it's about your "Can God create a rock so big even He can't lift it?", then my answer is: That's just a bunch of semantics silliness that doesn't prove anything or even have much of a meaning.

Language doesn't always reflect the real world, and especially the spiritual world, remember. "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." See?

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Okay altf4. I am a christain by the way.

Your question was "Can God make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it". That doesn't make sense. That's like saying "If you can't fall off a building and die, you can't do everything"

Basically, your trying to say that someone can't do everything if they can't not do a certain thing. The entire question is impossible to answer and does not prove any point.

Lombardi & Jammer, partners in pWnAgE

 

[AltF4]

Lol, noooo! I've been pwned by red letters!!!

Besides, it's not a problem of semantics. That was just an example of the real question:

Is god capable of contradiction? Is god bound by the laws of logic?
(Such as the Axioms of Logic like A=A, and if A = B and B = C, then A = C.)
Is god able to think of a number that is not equal to itself?

Basically, your trying to say that someone can't do everything if they can't not do a certain thing. The entire question is impossible to answer and does not prove any point.

It certainly does prove a point. You (meaning Christianity, perhaps not you specifically) say that god is omnipotent. Omnipotence means capable of doing anything. There is nothing that cannot be done. If you find ONE thing that the being cannot do, it is not omnipotent. By definition. I was trying to demonstrate how omnipotence itself is impossible.

Omniscience, however, is a bit more complicated, but also impossible.