In Alabama, saying the bible is only "partly true" is attack-ad worthy

[Shilohen]

Actually, for there to be morality, it is necessary to have a completely separate and constant guidepost. Morality is what defines good and evil. If we are the ones saying that "smothoboggin" is evil, that means that we are the ones who define what is good and evil. And if we are the ones who define what is good and evil, another group can say that "smothoboggin" is good and we really can't say jack about it unless we either convince them otherwise or subjugate their culture etc. This is exactly what the Nazis did. they said that exterminating the Jews was good. Also, cannibals say that eating their enemies is something beneficial - it is not defined as moral. However, we say exterminating Jews is evil and say that cannibalism is wrong. If people are those who define morality, how can one group of people contradict another group of people? At one time, slavery was thought of as a good thing. We justified it even using passages from the Bible. Some Muslim cultures have several practices that we define as evil, including suicide bombing non-combatants, but they claim as good. If they say it is good, how do you have the right to say it is evil? What exactly gives you the right?

You might just say that it is common sense, but obviously this isn't the case. At one time common sense said that slavery was ok. And common sense for some Muslim groups means killing those who disagree with your religion. Common sense obviously is not a guidepost. This also negates the Golden Rule as a guidepost. The Golden Rule only works if you share the same idea of what morality is with everyone else. Jesus actually did not say that the Golden Rule was the ultimate commandment. He said that it was 2nd in line to that which actually defines morality- Love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind. This is what informs the Golden Rule.

I pretty much follow a mix of those two:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#Moral_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

These are valid moral rules that both enable and encourage well functioning civilization and there's no need of a God for it to hold. Actually, religions have a quite good amount of blood on their hand so I would not say that they are that good to dictate what morality should be after all.

 

[totalnoob]

yes. The Bible does have a good bit of legitimate history attached to it. The exodus of the Isrealites, for example.

Conclusively disproven by Israeli archeology.. A huge team of Israelis combed the deserts for years in search of any evidence of the exodus. As you might imagine they had a strong personal stake in finding something, but they turned up with nada..and were forced to conclude that it never happened. We also have complete lack of historical records from Egypt. Egypt kept meticulous records of every little nomadic tribe..every band of traders that passed through their territory. They recorded every scuffle and certainly every minor battle with rebels. Their records are probably some of the best-kept in human history..yet oddly they mentioned nothing of 600,000 Jews escaping them...nor of any plagues that God supposedly sent upon them...nor when 30,000 of their troops were crushed when the parted Red Sea collapsed on their heads as they were pursuing Moses..

You would think they'd least have a footnote about that one..

 

[zinfamous]

Conclusively disproven by Israeli archeology.. A huge team of Israelis combed the deserts for years in search of any evidence of the exodus. As you might imagine they had a strong personal stake in finding something, but they turned up with nada..and were forced to conclude that it never happened. We also have complete lack of historical records from Egypt. Egypt kept meticulous records of every little nomadic tribe..every band of traders that passed through their territory. They recorded every scuffle and certainly every minor battle with rebels. Their records are probably some of the best-kept in human history..yet oddly they mentioned nothing of 600,000 Jews escaping them...nor of any plagues that God supposedly sent upon them...nor when 30,000 of their troops were crushed when the parted Red Sea collapsed on their heads as they were pursuing Moses..

You would think they'd least have a footnote about that one..

well, of course I dismiss the miracles and shit that are mentioned, I simply mean the migration.

interesting, though. I'd like to read up on this. I have a nice 4-part history of the Isrealites lined up in my queue.

The battle of Jericho and systematic slaughter of the caananites and all that stuff is pretty much true though, correct? Joshua was a real individual. David was a real individual. Just embellished liberally in the Talmud/OT, no?

 

[JSt0rm]

Joshua was a real individual. David was a real individual.

I know personally a joshua AND a david. So yeah Id say they are real

 

[Fear No Evil]

Umm..

No cosmological theory assumes the earth was created in an explosion. The big bang was no more an explosion than a black hole is explained effectively by a toilet. We may not know exactly what the first minute after the catalyst of explanation was like but we have a VERY strong understanding of how the earth came to be some billions of years later.

There is likely an infinite amount of information in existence.. if a lack of 100% certainty in something is enough to discredit it then you will be disappointed for a long time to come about everything one can fathom.

The truth is in no way somewhere "in between" on the basis that a set of data is incomplete. That is logically asinine. If I were to claim that my dog in secretly the puppet master of gravity does the fact that we do not yet understand how the quantum world correlates to gravitation lead one to believe that the truth must therefor be a combination of what we know and my dog? In a two pronged argument, one side with incomplete evidence and the other with none, the logical course is not to compromise; it is to discard the ideas that have no basis and endeavor to add to the incomplete set...

Ok, and how does science explain how matter/energy came into being? About the same way as saying God created it. I don't think its any dumber to think that some supreme being created it than it is to say it just magically appeared out of nothing or always existed. There is more 'faith' in science than you would like to believe.

However, as I stated, I don't really know WHICH side is right. There certainly seems to be too much coincidence in the universe to say that it just all happened by accident.. and there are too many things science just can't explain at this point. However, its equally silly to think that an omnipotent supreme being really gives a crap if we eat meat in Fridays during lent or needs us to 'worship' them.

I feel like there is a place for both faith and science in our world. If you have all the answers feel free to share.

 

[Daedalus685]

Ok, and how does science explain how matter/energy came into being? About the same way as saying God created it. I don't think its any dumber to think that some supreme being created it than it is to say it just magically appeared out of nothing or always existed. There is more 'faith' in science than you would like to believe.

However, as I stated, I don't really know WHICH side is right. There certainly seems to be too much coincidence in the universe to say that it just all happened by accident.. and there are too many things science just can't explain at this point. However, its equally silly to think that an omnipotent supreme being really gives a crap if we eat meat in Fridays during lent or needs us to 'worship' them.

I feel like there is a place for both faith and science in our world. If you have all the answers feel free to share.

It drives me nuts when folks say things like "you must have all the answers if such and such." One doe snot need all of the answers to have a good idea how certain things are.

No one has all the answers.. it is impossible to have all the answers.. Anyone who claims to is a fool.

We don't know what started the expansion, whether the universe existed as a singularity before it started or not, or whether things like energy even need a beginning (but why would they?). Noone ever said it magically appeared, you are entirely correct that to say that is just as dumb as to say god did it. But if you believe that is what cosmologists are suggesting you will need to learn about the state of things before commenting further. These "magical" moments are quite simply holes, there is nothing in the model that has no reason to bet there.. Something like inflation is often taken as being something of faith... but it is not even itself a theory as there is no mechanism to explain why it would happen (yet) just observations that it must have happened (at least it is the best bet so far).

There is no "faith" in science.. there is just unknown. I don't go around claiming that "pre-inflation looked exactly like this." I am quite thrilled with the prospect of perhaps learning about it some day, but because I do not know does not mean I take anything on faith. Speculation is not faith.

I suppose I have to take on faith that I do not know a lot of the "whys" and accept that they will make sense in time... But I am certainly (noone is) taking unknowns on faith as if they have to be a certain way for the sole reason that I am not sure. Incomplete evidence is far more moving than no evidence at all. No scientist would hold professional beliefs in something they can not show good reason for believing.

I can understand how folks spending their lives on mathematical constructs that may never be proven could seem like faith, but no scientist would be working on things like string theory if the mathematics didn't fit with what we already know. That is how it works, speculation first, followed by proof or vice versa. There is no faith involved.


To answer your question on how energy and matter came to be... they didn't. In all of our current models energy was there to begin with, it eventually condensed into matter as the universe cooled. Energy is simply there at the beginning of our understanding, just as space time is also there. There are ideas as to what happened before, but there is no theory yet... noone is claiming anything of the sort. We don't know, that is not to say that we don't know a heck of a lot about what happened after the mystery period though. If one desires to place god in these unknowns they are free to.. but it is a losing endeavor as the gaps will always be there, but always shrinking, and would be as useful as a well written theory about how any other unknowable something is true. Given enough Arthur C. Clarks we could present an infinite number of explanations for these uknowns.. It is a waste of time beyond the obvious entertainment it would bring to be given an infinite collection of his work 🙂.

 

[jonks]

It drives me nuts when folks say things like "you must have all the answers if such and such." One doe snot need all of the answers to have a good idea how certain things are.

No one has all the answers.. it is impossible to have all the answers.. Anyone who claims to is a fool.

good intro for an old favorite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

 

[jackschmittusa]

jonks

Thanks for the link. Good stuff.

 

[spittledip]

If something can be done against gods will he is not all powerful.

Not really. If he forced people to do as He wanted, it would not be free will. God is not some automaton in the sky forcing everyone to do everything He wants. If he wants an individual with freewill to choose to do something, and they do not, does that mean that He is not all powerful? No, it merely means that the individual did not do what God wanted him to do. If he forced the individual, the individual would no longer have freewill. God's will is for us to choose to do His will. God's will is to not force us to make choices that coincide with His will. You are oversimplfying what it means to be all-powerful and oversimplifying who God is.

Your argument goes against the existence of an all powerful being.
"How can god control every little act?"
"When does he start intervening?"

You are taking this argument out of context. I was not saying that God is not able, I was pointing out that:
1. All men commit evil acts.
2. It is incredibly absurd to think that God would intervene every time a man committed an evil act.
Go back and read it within the context in which it was written and you should see where you are mistaken.

Didn't he create the entire universe and every single little atom in it (including the evil ones!) knowing before hand what was going to happen and suddenly he comes up short? Why is he now not powerful enough?

Again, you oversimplify. He gave both the Angels and man free will. His will was and is that men follow him of their own accord.

Right....So how do we know when god is actually intervening on behalf of someone who is willing? Take your word for it? What about people who suffer horribly and god doesn't intervene, is it just part of the plan? Or are they just not worthy?

God is His own person. Do you really think there is a stimulus/response to this process? You oversimplify once again. God intervenes when He intervenes. There is no "formula."

Humans don't have have constantly moral guideposts. Even Christianity itself has changed constantly since the time of Jesus. Humans and our cultures are what decide right and wrong and it changes regularly.

Morality never changes. Laws change, but morality does not. Just b/c certain aspects of morality are enforced/regarded in a society does not mean that morality has changed; it only means that the culture has chosen to regard/enforce certain aspects. Also, you really did not address the point at all.

Actually God created evil.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil

You should read about this a bit more. Check out the Hebrew meaning for the word used for "evil". Also note that the opposite of "peace" is not evil. This is literature you know 😉

He created Satan/Lucifer

He Created Adam & Eve and gave them free will and they were corrupted by Satan.

God did all of this knowing before hand what the end result was going to be as god is omniscient. Now, because of 2 fictitious people who were designed to fail we all supposedly have original sin?

Yes, He did in fact know everything that was going to happen. I figure that it was just a matter of creating everything and letting people make their decisions. The only other 2 options is to make a world full of biological robots or to not create anything at all.

 

[Scionix]

As a resident of Alabama, the politics is admittedly hilarious, but the fact that so many people have some sort of idea that everyone here is "third world" is disgusting. Are we being serious?

I mean, with quotes like, "You know I actually care less about the oil spill because it affects the south," how do some of you take yourselves seriously?

/rant

 

[spittledip]

It's a factual statement to say that someone who believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible is unreasonable. That you take it as an insult that you choose faith over reason leads me to believe that you should question your beliefs more often.

I do not choose faith over reason. I choose both. That you are unwilling to understand that is not really my problem.

This is what irritates me. How can you even think this? Do you have any evidence that God created this earthquake or that flood? Why can't they simply just be natural processes? Of course, in a world where God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, you are reduced to discussing God's will in regards to just about everything. You see why people get frustrated? It's totally without evidence and illogical.

No, that is not what I was saying- i was not sure what you were saying although I see it now. Generally the problems in the world are due to men. All human-to-human problems are all definitely caused by people.

The blow off their personal responsibility to make reasoned and informed decisions and conclusions. Maybe I just expect too much out of humanity.

Again, the teachings of the Bible are all about taking complete responsibility.

If you believe a literal reading of the Bible, then I would say everything connected to any supernatural event.

How you interpret someone's motives is your problem. If you don't believe in the supernatural, of course you are not going to agree with people assigning certain events to the supernatural. Your belief about the motives of people who do believe in the supernatural is not based on fact- it is based on personal bias.

 

[DanDaManJC]

It drives me nuts when folks say things like "you must have all the answers if such and such." One doe snot need all of the answers to have a good idea how certain things are.

No one has all the answers.. it is impossible to have all the answers.. Anyone who claims to is a fool.

The talk origins archive has a good set of Q&As related to this sentiment...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
CA300-CA499: Scientific Method

I think a good general one to go along with this is

Claim CA301:
Science is based on naturalism, the unproven assumption that nature is all there is.
Source:
Johnson, Phillip E. 1990. Evolution as dogma: The establishment of naturalism. First Things no. 6, p. 15-22, http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/pjdogma1.htm
Dembski, William A. 1996. What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design. http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_theologn.htm
Response:

1. The naturalism that science adopts is methodological naturalism. It does not assume that nature is all there is; it merely notes that nature is the only objective standard we have. The supernatural is not ruled out a priori; when it claims observable results that can be studied scientifically, the supernatural is studied scientifically (e.g., Astin et al. 2000; Enright 1999). It gets little attention because it has never been reliably observed. Still, there are many scientists who use naturalism but who believe in more than nature.

2. The very same form of naturalism is used by everyone, including creationists, in their day-to-day lives. People literally could not survive without making naturalistic assumptions. Creationism itself is based on the naturalistic assumption that the Bible has not changed since the last time it was read.

3. Naturalism works. By assuming methodological naturalism, we have made tremendous advances in industry, medicine, agriculture, and many other fields. Supernaturalism has never led anywhere. Newton, for example, wrote far more on theology than he did on physics, but his theological work is largely forgotten because there has been no reason to remember it other than for historical curiosity.

4. Supernaturalism is contentious. Scientific findings are based on hard evidence, and scientists can point at the evidence to resolve disputes. People tend to have different and incompatible ideas of what form supernatural influences take, and all too often the only effective way they have found for reaching a consensus is by killing each other.

 

[spittledip]

spittledip

Really funny that you chose slavery as an example. The Bible condoned slavery from the very beginning. There were even rules for how to treat them.

The fairy tale of Moses makes a big deal about how bad it is that the Jews are enslaved, and God was so pissed off he killed thousands over it. You'd think somewhere along the way, God, the Jews, somebody, would have thought "Hmm...slavery = bad." and declared it a "moral guidepost". But alas, nobody did.

Sorry, but the "religion is responsible for morality" is total BS.

The first rule is meaningless to me as well. Telling me to love your god has as much value as telling me to love unicorns.

And your quip about Nazis saying killing the Jews was good? Your god declared (according to your beliefs) that killing all but 8 people in the world was a good thing. Think about all the killing and genocide he ordered in the Old Testament. Makes the Nazis look like amateurs.

You should really find better examples.

God used the Israelites to punish nations, whic included making them into slaves. It might have been more effective for you to mention that God dedicated cities to destruction, and had the Israelites kill everything in it and completely burn everything in it to the ground. That included children. Morality is not something that applies to God. God is the measuring stick, not the "rules." That is why love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul" is the primary commandment. Everything else flows from this. Of course a psychopath can really warp this to their benefit, as some have.

Quite honestly, I am not not comfortable with God allowing slavery and having children killed. What I do understand is that I really don't understand how much God hates sin, and how He demands that all sins be paid for. We live in the filth everyday, so it is hard for us to see how bad everything is and how much God hates the filth. Of course, the more you get to know God, the more you understand His hatred of sin.

People often talk about how God is a God of love and al that, like He is some cuddly teddy bear. This is a totally false view of God. It is true that He is a God of love, but He also is holy and demands holiness from everyone. That is why Christ had to come- he was the only way anyone on earth could attain holiness. And, being holy Himself as He is God, only he could take the full justice our sin demanded.

 

[Red Dawn]

God used the Israelites to punish nations, whic included making them into slaves. It might have been more effective for you to mention that God dedicated cities to destruction, and had the Israelites kill everything in it and completely burn everything in it to the ground. That included children. Morality is not something that applies to God. God is the measuring stick, not the "rules." That is why love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul" is the primary commandment. Everything else flows from this. Of course a psychopath can really warp this to their benefit, as some have.

Quite honestly, I am not not comfortable with God allowing slavery and having children killed. What I do understand is that I really don't understand how much God hates sin, and how He demands that all sins be paid for. We live in the filth everyday, so it is hard for us to see how bad everything is and how much God hates the filth. Of course, the more you get to know God, the more you understand His hatred of sin.

People often talk about how God is a God of love and al that, like He is some cuddly teddy bear. This is a totally false view of God. It is true that He is a God of love, but He also is holy and demands holiness from everyone. That is why Christ had to come- he was the only way anyone on earth could attain holiness. And, being holy Himself as He is God, only he could take the full justice our sin demanded.

Now that's some faith boy, you have to have faith to believe that nonsense. And they criticize the Muslims as being out of touch. Birds of a feather,the Religions of Abraham.🙄

 

[spittledip]

How was Adam to know eating the fruit from the tree was wrong? How was he to know when he had no knowledge of right and wrong..good or evil? He was punished for an action he had no means of discerning was wrong before he committed it. God, being timeless and omniscient had to know everything Adam would do before he did it. He knew that the serpent would tempt Eve, and he allowed it to happen. (Who created the evil serpent and allowed it in the garden by the way?)

The only conclusion we can draw is that the game was rigged from the beginning and the fall of man was intended by God. Otherwise you'll need to drop your claim that he is omniscient. If you do this and we assume God is imperfect and was indeed "surprised" at what Adam did, where is the justice in punishing billions of his descendants for that "crime"? How do you reconcile the condemnation of countless innocents before birth with a perfectly just god?

Don't give me this BS about him providing Jesus as a "loophole" to forgive humanity. God is infinitely powerful so he could have changed the rules at any time..or he could simply have FORGIVEN Adam. Surely a being of infinite love and wisdom would have understood that punishing someone who had no knowledge of right and wrong was not an act of justice. He could have forgiven the original sin..or even erased Adam and started over. But no..Instead he decided to wait a few thousand years, flood the planet and kill everyone, wait another thousand years, impregnate a virgin, become human, then sacrifice himself to himself in order to give us a loophole for the rules he laid down in the first place. You really think this is the best plan the creator of the universe could come up with?

Batshit insane.

I answered all this in another post a little bit ago. Also, God very clearly instructed Adam not to eat from the tree. This very instruction was the very pivot for free will.

 

[spittledip]

Ate shellfish or wore any cotton-polyester blends lately? I sure hope not: http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

Religion is fine as long as one is using it for his personal growth and not pressed on others. The Bible is a book that was most likely written be wise men with good intents and who wanted the best for the world based on their system of values which was in sync with the state of society at that time I guess. To follow the most fundamental principle of love is noble and apply your own critic sense to the parable is wise, but believing everything is hard to conciliate with scientific facts without falling into obscurantism imho.

That is a funny link, but it represents a gross misunderstanding of the Law God gave to the Israelites. As I noted on one of my posts above, God is Holy and hates sin. The purpose of all the rituals and laws that God gave to the Israelites was to demonstrate his complete Holiness to the Israelites and the surrounding nations. It was actually never the means of their salvation either. The commandment to love God with all heart, soul and mind is the means for salvation for the Israelites before Christ.

 

[ShawnD1]

good intro for an old favorite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Cute video. I like this 🙂

 

[totalnoob]

Also, God very clearly instructed Adam not to eat from the tree.

The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man. - Ayn Rand

 

[Sclamoz]

Not really. If he forced people to do as He wanted, it would not be free will. God is not some automaton in the sky forcing everyone to do everything He wants. If he wants an individual with freewill to choose to do something, and they do not, does that mean that He is not all powerful? No, it merely means that the individual did not do what God wanted him to do. If he forced the individual, the individual would no longer have freewill. God's will is for us to choose to do His will. God's will is to not force us to make choices that coincide with His will. You are oversimplfying what it means to be all-powerful and oversimplifying who God is.

As you yourself have agreed GOD knows everything, even before the universe was created. If god is all powerful there would be nothing stopping him from creating a universe were people have freewill but never hurt his feelings.

God is His own person. Do you really think there is a stimulus/response to this process? You oversimplify once again. God intervenes when He intervenes. There is no "formula."

I have no idea what you mean by "stimulus/response to this process"?

So basically god chooses to let innocent people suffer by the millions? But intervenes (violates free will) for others?

I'm really impressed that you know in such detail the mind of a fictitious being.

Morality never changes. Laws change, but morality does not. Just b/c certain aspects of morality are enforced/regarded in a society does not mean that morality has changed; it only means that the culture has chosen to regard/enforce certain aspects. Also, you really did not address the point at all.

Are you saying the views of what is right and wrong is the same everywhere and throughout human history?

You should read about this a bit more. Check out the Hebrew meaning for the word used for "evil". Also note that the opposite of "peace" is not evil. This is literature you know 😉

Yes its literature that can be twisted and conformed to your personal point of view. Its a direct quote from the King James bible.

Yes, He did in fact know everything that was going to happen. I figure that it was just a matter of creating everything and letting people make their decisions. The only other 2 options is to make a world full of biological robots or to not create anything at all.

So God you're saying God couldn't have just avoided creating satan or any of the events that lead up to adam & eve being cast out of the garden of eden? He knew before he created anything what the end result was going to be. Since he is all powerful there is nothing stopping him from making changes as he is creating the universe. Not even just these examples but the root causes of say earthquakes, tornadoes, flooding and tsunamis, diseases and plagues (not to mention creating people just to be sent to hell).

If god is all powerful he could have created our world without these problems. Since God created everything and everyone knowing before he did so what was going to happen the only logical conclusions are:

1. God created the universe and everything in it exactly happens as he intends.
2. God is not all powerful
3. There is no God.

Also, God very clearly instructed Adam not to eat from the tree. This very instruction was the very pivot for free will.

Strange god would do that since he knew already what was going to happen.

 

[BigDH01]

I do not choose faith over reason. I choose both. That you are unwilling to understand that is not really my problem.

You have to. In a theological context, faith is exclusively the belief in that which lacks evidence. If we could reason the existence of God, you wouldn't need faith.

No, that is not what I was saying- i was not sure what you were saying although I see it now. Generally the problems in the world are due to men. All human-to-human problems are all definitely caused by people.

There are many problems in the world that are natural, and when you believe God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, it stands to reason they are all the result of His will. In other words, divine.

Again, the teachings of the Bible are all about taking complete responsibility.

While demanding that people ignore or disbelieve their greatest gift, the human brain and our ability to solve problems with logic and observation.

How you interpret someone's motives is your problem. If you don't believe in the supernatural, of course you are not going to agree with people assigning certain events to the supernatural. Your belief about the motives of people who do believe in the supernatural is not based on fact- it is based on personal bias.

I obviously have a problem with people attributing what they do not understand to the supernatural. It's not personal bias to claim these people lack reason. And as I said before, attributing what you don't understand to the supernatural is intellectual laziness.

 

[spittledip]

The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man. - Ayn Rand

Ayn is way off. He was created a moral agent b/c he always had the choice to obey. He had the capacity to enjoy work, sex,etc before the fall. Ayn assumes that man was created without capacity to choose- it is evident that man was given the choice and was told not to make the wrong choice but went ahead anyway.

 

[spittledip]

As you yourself have agreed GOD knows everything, even before the universe was created. If god is all powerful there would be nothing stopping him from creating a universe were people have freewill but never hurt his feelings.

They would not have a choice in your scenario. They would be programmed like robots.

I have no idea what you mean by "stimulus/response to this process"?

So basically god chooses to let innocent people suffer by the millions? But intervenes (violates free will) for others?

God says Himself that He has mercy on who He will have mercy. What I mean by "stimulous/response" is that there is no method for manipulating God into making Him do what you want. He does say that He works all things together for good for those who love Him (those who loved Him being the redeemed). He does not make such a promise to anyone else. He also says that He send sun to rise on the just and unjust.

This is where you all get lost- you want to say man has complete responsibility for himself, but then if God is in the picture, you want God to take complete responsibility for man and the mistakes He makes. You need to make up your mind. God does intervene, just not all the time. Even if the cause of suffering is due to man.

Are you saying the views of what is right and wrong is the same everywhere and throughout human history?

No, I am actually saying the opposite- the views of right and wrong change from person to person and culture to culture. I am also saying what actually is right and wrong does not change through history, which is a completely different thing..

Yes its literature that can be twisted and conformed to your personal point of view. Its a direct quote from the King James bible.

It is more accurately translated as "calamity." This is why I wanted you to look into it yourself so you can see for yourself.

So God you're saying God couldn't have just avoided creating satan or any of the events that lead up to adam & eve being cast out of the garden of eden? He knew before he created anything what the end result was going to be. Since he is all powerful there is nothing stopping him from making changes as he is creating the universe. Not even just these examples but the root causes of say earthquakes, tornadoes, flooding and tsunamis, diseases and plagues (not to mention creating people just to be sent to hell).

If god is all powerful he could have created our world without these problems. Since God created everything and everyone knowing before he did so what was going to happen the only logical conclusions are:

1. God created the universe and everything in it exactly happens as he intends.
2. God is not all powerful
3. There is no God.

Strange god would do that since he knew already what was going to happen.

God could have done whatever He wanted. However, He wanted man to have free will, so He put the Tree in the Garden and gave him the choice.

 

[spittledip]

You have to. In a theological context, faith is exclusively the belief in that which lacks evidence. If we could reason the existence of God, you wouldn't need faith.

Actually as it states in Romans people should use reason to come to understand that there is a God by the witness of the creation. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

There are many problems in the world that are natural, and when you believe God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, it stands to reason they are all the result of His will. In other words, divine.

Man tends to cause his own problems. I don't think God made BP greedy, careless and lazy so that they messed up and dumped tons of oil into the ocean. Nor do I think God makes any one of us insult another, think poorly of another person, lie, cheat, steal etc.

While demanding that people ignore or disbelieve their greatest gift, the human brain and our ability to solve problems with logic and observation.

We are to love God with our entire selves, which includes our minds. This includes delving into the sciences obviously.

 

[BigDH01]

Actually as it states in Romans people should use reason to come to understand that there is a God by the witness of the creation. Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

Witness of the creation as a supernatural event, which is not reasonable. Despite what the Bible says.

Man tends to cause his own problems. I don't think God made BP greedy, careless and lazy so that they messed up and dumped tons of oil into the ocean. Nor do I think God makes any one of us insult another, think poorly of another person, lie, cheat, steal etc.

Did he cause the earthquake in Haiti or tsunami in Indonesia or the hurricane in New Orleans or etc, etc? Was that God's judgment or just a natural event?

We are to love God with our entire selves, which includes our minds. This includes delving into the sciences obviously.

Obviously not. The scientific method is the supernatural's worst enemy.

 

[Shilohen]

That is a funny link, but it represents a gross misunderstanding of the Law God gave to the Israelites. As I noted on one of my posts above, God is Holy and hates sin. The purpose of all the rituals and laws that God gave to the Israelites was to demonstrate his complete Holiness to the Israelites and the surrounding nations. It was actually never the means of their salvation either. The commandment to love God with all heart, soul and mind is the means for salvation for the Israelites before Christ.

You're missing the point. You said that you believe in all teachings in the Bible. Therefore:
- Is eating shellfish condemned by the Bible or not? Lev. 11:10 seems to say so
- Now do you consider it a teaching or not?
- If not, what make it less a teaching than anything else in the Bible, how does one chose what is a relevant in the Bible from what is not?
- If yes, then do you eat any kind of shellfish?
- If no, good, apply the same reasoning to textile blends.
- If yes, then you're willingly and knowingly committing what you yourself consider a sin and why would you do that? That would be really immoral and evil