Originally Posted By utahjosh <I don't think anyone trivialized it. Where did you read that part?> ecdc's post 115. He called it a "small, meaningless sacrifice." Wasn't hard to find.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>ecdc's post 115. He called it a "small, meaningless sacrifice."<< Spare me the outrage. Anyone who read's my post knows what I meant. I know I'm supposed to bow down in reverence to all things Jesus, but it's a fair question. I think it's one that deserves an answer instead of just the typical "how dare you!" response.
Originally Posted By utahjosh What outrage, ecdc? I responded with my opinion. My response was valid and polite, and specific to your question.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <<**a God trembled** I think this sort of reference is part of the reason why other christians are wary of mormons. It doesn't jive with the normal christian way of thinking.>> I don't think you're right on here, Mr X. What is the normal christian way of thinking when it comes to the suffering of Christ? In the accounts of this suffering, it's recorded that Jesus prayed "Father, if it be possible, let this pass cup from me." That an angel came to "strengthen" him. Do those things jive with the "normal" christian way of thinking?
Originally Posted By RC Collins plpeters70: >>Which Scriptures would those be again?<< In my case, I’m referring to the Holy Bible, both “Old†and “New†Testaments. >>"There is a difference between murdering and killing. Who better to judge who deserves death than God?" But, of course, it's not usually God who's actually doing the killing, but some surrogate who claims that God gave him permission to kill.<< But if we have God or the Word of God explaining it is His will, then we know. ecdc >>But you start with several assumptions and work backwards from there.<< Everyone starts somewhere, including you. We’re here. How? I dare suggest that if anything now exists, then either something is eternal, or something not eternal came from nothing. Some say that the universe itself is eternal, but what we know about matter/energy and astronomy suggests otherwise. If you want to believe that something can spontaneously arise from nothing, then good luck functioning in the world. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that something (or someone) transcendent of the universe caused the universe. Wouldn’t such a powerful being be able to communicate and interact with us? Going back to an earlier point in this discussion, someone pointed to all of the evil in the world. Like many others, I take the reality of the difference between good and evil to be a clue that there is an ultimate source of good – God – that good and evil are not merely societal constructs. There’s Jesus Christ. I’ve never seen anyone with an explanation about Jesus that wasn’t one of these four: 1) He is a legend (meaning he didn’t exist or was a normal man with legendary stories surrounding him); 2) He was liar; 3) He was a lunatic (delusional); 4) He was/is Lord. #1 seems most popular these days among those who don’t believe. But what we know from Christian and non-Christian sources leads almost all serious scholars and critics to agree that Jesus was a real person. Based on the same sources, I have good reason to believe that: 1) Jesus died on a Roman cross and that 2) Many people saw/touched Jesus alive after this happened, transforming his disciples and convincing some who didn’t follow him during his earthly ministry. I’d say overcoming death points more to Lord than “liar†or “lunaticâ€. If there is a God, I can’t think of a better way to communicate with us then to become one of us and set an example for us. Finally, there’s the Bible, a collection of 66 books or letters, really. The Bible makes certain claims about itself. Either those claims are true, or they aren’t. If Jesus affirmed the Old Testament and promised the New Testament, then I think they are worth at least checking out. God has communicated with us in many ways, including through the earthly ministry and life of Jesus Christ, and through the Bible, which provides a lasting, objective form of communication. A person doesn’t need to wait for a personal mystical experience to learn how to fellowship with God; doesn’t even need someone in that fellowship to tell them anything face to face. – they can find a Bible and learn by reading. >>You assume, for example, that it is scripture (even though modern scholarship shows otherwise).<< Modern scholarship does nothing of the sort. >>There isn't, but some people would rather believe that they're somehow the right ones, the special ones, the different ones.<< So you don’t think you are right in your beliefs about God or morality? >>You're the same.<< People may appear to be the same as they both drive cars to their destinations – after all, we’re all humans – but if one car is heading over a cliff and the other a structurally sound bridge, I’d say there is quite a lot of difference. >>No, that's called one of thousands of excuses invented to explain away God's seeming powerlessness and aloofness.<< God is certainly not powerless nor aloof. Tell me – what could a God possibly do to show you otherwise? (Let me venture a guess – would it be changing something about the world YOU don’t like?) >>God hasn't made anything clear; if he had, it would be clear. It's absurd to somehow blame the listeners for just not getting the message (but those who believe like you picked it up ok - another convenience).<< Listeners don’t get messages all of the time, because they aren’t really listening or they don’t want to listen. This happens all of the time in everyday life. People can be in situations where they know that the right or sensible thing to do is – it can be very clear - and they still fail to do it. >>There is a difference between murdering and killing. Who better to judge who deserves death than God?<< >>Bible is replete with stories of people who heard God's command to kill and carried it out. Who are we to tell someone today that they can't do the same?<< If it is really God’s command, then I have no place telling someone not to follow God. But there are consequences to any action. God has made it clear to punish murderers, and if someone murders someone else, we should react accordingly. CLAIMING God told you to kill someone does not mean God really did tell you that, obviously. >>Why should we believe the Bible if it has stories of God telling people to kill, then not believe people who claim the same thing today?<< That doesn’t follow. I don’t believe the Bible *because* it records God commanding people to wipe out a thoroughly corrupt group of people (who sacrificed their own babies, by the way). I believe the Bible *and* the Bible contains instances where God commands specific people to carry out His specific judgment in a specific instance. I have no reason to believe God is telling a specific group to do this today with another nation. Your statement is like asking “Why should I believe George Washington was President of the United States, then not believe his is currently President of Peru?†>>I do think they need some exposure to other ideas, to the history of the Bible, comparative religion, education, etc.<< Many of us have all of that, and guess what? We have come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, and that the Bible is authoritative when it comes to telling us who God is and how to follow Jesus. There are people out there who can’t understand how anyone else can come to different conclusions than they have, and they think it they repeat everything all over again, louder, the people who disagree with them will come around. There are plenty of Christians who make this mistake, but you seem to one of the non-Christians who make this mistake. >>From my perspective, the thing that separates western Christians from fundamentalist Muslims isn't their beliefs. It's education and prosperity. Put Christians in similar circumstances, and history has shown us they're capable of just as much violence.<< On the contrary, history has shown there is no equivalence between any form of orthodox (small “oâ€) Christianity and the Islamofascists. Have Christians sinned big time? Yes. But overall, there is a huge difference. Inquiry (beyond the shallowness provided in Sunday school) is usually discouraged, and information about the religion or organization that doesn't come from the organization itself is often seen as suspect and untrustworthy. Hmmm, not in the case of orthodox Christian churches. That tends to be true of the cults, though. Perhaps you should take a glance at Christian journals and research organizations before making such a statement. I’ll point out yet again some relevant Bible verses in this matter, because the Bible doesn’t say “just believe and accept without questionâ€: Acts 17:11, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, 1 Peter 3:15, 1 John 4:1. That’s four different writers. >>I'm more than familiar with the one-liners that will make the faithful nod their heads in church - "God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is no..."<< I used this in response to the notion that God always does whatever we ask for (such as healing us right now). There are preachers who tell people He will, and they are lying, at least according to the Bible. >>I think the point is, Josh, that it's typically religious people that fight the most for life, even if the quality of that life is in question.<< In my case, that is because I believe life is sacred, not death. Death is the absence of life. While it is a normal part of life now, I don’t think it will always be. There are a lot of people who believe it is fine to starve someone to death because when they die, they’ll “be in a better placeâ€. How do these people know that? I do believe in Heaven, but that is based on my belief in Jesus Christ and the reliability of the Bible. I don’t know anyone else’s heart or their relationship with God, and so have no idea if they are going to a better place or not. In the case of close family and friends, I may know enough about them to make a good guess as to whether they know Jesus or not. >>But I think one could make the case that a fetus would be a lot better off in heaven than in a crack addict's home.<< That’s not our call to make. Otherwise, we’d be committing mass suicide (as some cultists have done). God is the author of life. >>I agree with pecos bill's point, that religious people often see death as a punishment, or a tragedy. If they really believed their religion, all death should be welcomed, even encouraged. I know that most see suicide as a sin, and I get that.<< As I wrote earlier in this post, death is not good. Thankfully, Jesus has overcome sin and death. I do look forward to Heaven (should the Lord not return before I die), but I look forward even more to being resurrected. >>It strikes me as a small, meaningless sacrifice for a God to die and go to paradise or heaven.<< It’s meaningless for God to condescend to take on a human nature, live a perfect sinless life, and then be mocked, brutally beaten, and executed by His depraved creatures? Jesus was the one person who didn’t deserve death. There was also the spiritual pain of taking on all those sins – but that is probably something you ignore entirely. >>After all, science isn't to be trusted - it gives us evolution.<< A theistic worldview is what gave rise to the scientific method. Science can be trusted to teach us much about the world, but not to make decisions for us. Scientists can tell us how some things happen, or how we can do some something, but that doesn’t make them an authority on whether or not those things should be done. Regarding evolution – don’t these threads always touch on this? – My beef is not with evolution or science. My beef is philosophical naturalism. dshyates >>the big bang<< Which actually is highly compatible with the Bible. >>and cloning.<< Cloning is twinning. No big deal. But actively killing human beings, no matter how small, is wrong. Human beings, from a civil perspective, all should have their human rights honored, regardless of whether they are the result of cloning or not. I think turning human beings into property to be bought, sold, or experimented on without their consent is a bad idea.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Those really long posts are hard to respond to. It feels like writing a research paper.
Originally Posted By ecdc I may respond later, but I agree, Josh. Again, most of it is Evangelical one-liners that play well in church, and sound inspired and thoughtful to believers, but really means nothing and offers nothing to further the discussion.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I don't mean to disparage RC's comments. I agree with some of them, disagree with others. But really, the length is a little much, especially with so many topics in one post.
Originally Posted By johnno52 This is supposed to be just a friendly discussion, you don't have to prepare oneself for a term paper. Post (145) to me is sermonizing and trying to take control and defend every statement of the discussion. Again it only discusses one part of the topic! I want to hear more about how the faith helped you with your medical care if you've had any!
Originally Posted By RC Collins Okay, I'm sorry. In the future, I'll try to do many posts instead of a long post.
Originally Posted By RC Collins plpeters70: >>Which Scriptures would those be again?<< In my case, I’m referring to the Holy Bible, both “Old†and “New†Testaments. >>"There is a difference between murdering and killing. Who better to judge who deserves death than God?" But, of course, it's not usually God who's actually doing the killing, but some surrogate who claims that God gave him permission to kill.<< But if we have God or the Word of God explaining it is His will, then we know.
Originally Posted By RC Collins ecdc >>But you start with several assumptions and work backwards from there.<< Everyone starts somewhere, including you. We’re here. How? I dare suggest that if anything now exists, then either something is eternal, or something not eternal came from nothing. Some say that the universe itself is eternal, but what we know about matter/energy and astronomy suggests otherwise. If you want to believe that something can spontaneously arise from nothing, then good luck functioning in the world. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that something (or someone) transcendent of the universe caused the universe. Wouldn’t such a powerful being be able to communicate and interact with us? Going back to an earlier point in this discussion, someone pointed to all of the evil in the world. Like many others, I take the reality of the difference between good and evil to be a clue that there is an ultimate source of good – God – that good and evil are not merely societal constructs. There’s Jesus Christ. I’ve never seen anyone with an explanation about Jesus that wasn’t one of these four: 1) He is a legend (meaning he didn’t exist or was a normal man with legendary stories surrounding him); 2) He was liar; 3) He was a lunatic (delusional); 4) He was/is Lord. #1 seems most popular these days among those who don’t believe. But what we know from Christian and non-Christian sources leads almost all serious scholars and critics to agree that Jesus was a real person. Based on the same sources, I have good reason to believe that: 1) Jesus died on a Roman cross and that 2) Many people saw/touched Jesus alive after this happened, transforming his disciples and convincing some who didn’t follow him during his earthly ministry. I’d say overcoming death points more to Lord than “liar†or “lunaticâ€. If there is a God, I can’t think of a better way to communicate with us then to become one of us and set an example for us. Finally, there’s the Bible, a collection of 66 books or letters, really. The Bible makes certain claims about itself. Either those claims are true, or they aren’t. If Jesus affirmed the Old Testament and promised the New Testament, then I think they are worth at least checking out. God has communicated with us in many ways, including through the earthly ministry and life of Jesus Christ, and through the Bible, which provides a lasting, objective form of communication. A person doesn’t need to wait for a personal mystical experience to learn how to fellowship with God; doesn’t even need someone in that fellowship to tell them anything face to face. – they can find a Bible and learn by reading. >>You assume, for example, that it is scripture (even though modern scholarship shows otherwise).<< Modern scholarship does nothing of the sort. >>There isn't, but some people would rather believe that they're somehow the right ones, the special ones, the different ones.<< So you don’t think you are right in your beliefs about God or morality? >>You're the same.<< People may appear to be the same as they both drive cars to their destinations – after all, we’re all humans – but if one car is heading over a cliff and the other a structurally sound bridge, I’d say there is quite a lot of difference. >>No, that's called one of thousands of excuses invented to explain away God's seeming powerlessness and aloofness.<< God is certainly not powerless nor aloof. Tell me – what could a God possibly do to show you otherwise? (Let me venture a guess – would it be changing something about the world YOU don’t like?) >>God hasn't made anything clear; if he had, it would be clear. It's absurd to somehow blame the listeners for just not getting the message (but those who believe like you picked it up ok - another convenience).<< Listeners don’t get messages all of the time, because they aren’t really listening or they don’t want to listen. This happens all of the time in everyday life. People can be in situations where they know that the right or sensible thing to do is – it can be very clear - and they still fail to do it.
Originally Posted By RC Collins ecdc: >>There is a difference between murdering and killing. Who better to judge who deserves death than God?<< >>Bible is replete with stories of people who heard God's command to kill and carried it out. Who are we to tell someone today that they can't do the same?<< If it is really God’s command, then I have no place telling someone not to follow God. But there are consequences to any action. God has made it clear to punish murderers, and if someone murders someone else, we should react accordingly. CLAIMING God told you to kill someone does not mean God really did tell you that, obviously. >>Why should we believe the Bible if it has stories of God telling people to kill, then not believe people who claim the same thing today?<< That doesn’t follow. I don’t believe the Bible *because* it records God commanding people to wipe out a thoroughly corrupt group of people (who sacrificed their own babies, by the way). I believe the Bible *and* the Bible contains instances where God commands specific people to carry out His specific judgment in a specific instance. I have no reason to believe God is telling a specific group to do this today with another nation. Your statement is like asking “Why should I believe George Washington was President of the United States, then not believe his is currently President of Peru?†>>I do think they need some exposure to other ideas, to the history of the Bible, comparative religion, education, etc.<< Many of us have all of that, and guess what? We have come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, and that the Bible is authoritative when it comes to telling us who God is and how to follow Jesus. There are people out there who can’t understand how anyone else can come to different conclusions than they have, and they think it they repeat everything all over again, louder, the people who disagree with them will come around. There are plenty of Christians who make this mistake, but you seem to one of the non-Christians who make this mistake. >>From my perspective, the thing that separates western Christians from fundamentalist Muslims isn't their beliefs. It's education and prosperity. Put Christians in similar circumstances, and history has shown us they're capable of just as much violence.<< On the contrary, history has shown there is no equivalence between any form of orthodox (small “oâ€) Christianity and the Islamofascists. Have Christians sinned big time? Yes. But overall, there is a huge difference. Inquiry (beyond the shallowness provided in Sunday school) is usually discouraged, and information about the religion or organization that doesn't come from the organization itself is often seen as suspect and untrustworthy. Hmmm, not in the case of orthodox Christian churches. That tends to be true of the cults, though. Perhaps you should take a glance at Christian journals and research organizations before making such a statement. I’ll point out yet again some relevant Bible verses in this matter, because the Bible doesn’t say “just believe and accept without questionâ€: Acts 17:11, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, 1 Peter 3:15, 1 John 4:1. That’s four different writers. >>I'm more than familiar with the one-liners that will make the faithful nod their heads in church - "God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answer is no..."<< I used this in response to the notion that God always does whatever we ask for (such as healing us right now). There are preachers who tell people He will, and they are lying, at least according to the Bible. >>I think the point is, Josh, that it's typically religious people that fight the most for life, even if the quality of that life is in question.<< In my case, that is because I believe life is sacred, not death. Death is the absence of life. While it is a normal part of life now, I don’t think it will always be. There are a lot of people who believe it is fine to starve someone to death because when they die, they’ll “be in a better placeâ€. How do these people know that? I do believe in Heaven, but that is based on my belief in Jesus Christ and the reliability of the Bible. I don’t know anyone else’s heart or their relationship with God, and so have no idea if they are going to a better place or not. In the case of close family and friends, I may know enough about them to make a good guess as to whether they know Jesus or not. >>But I think one could make the case that a fetus would be a lot better off in heaven than in a crack addict's home.<< That’s not our call to make. Otherwise, we’d be committing mass suicide (as some cultists have done). God is the author of life. >>I agree with pecos bill's point, that religious people often see death as a punishment, or a tragedy. If they really believed their religion, all death should be welcomed, even encouraged. I know that most see suicide as a sin, and I get that.<< As I wrote earlier in this post, death is not good. Thankfully, Jesus has overcome sin and death. I do look forward to Heaven (should the Lord not return before I die), but I look forward even more to being resurrected. >>It strikes me as a small, meaningless sacrifice for a God to die and go to paradise or heaven.<< It’s meaningless for God to condescend to take on a human nature, live a perfect sinless life, and then be mocked, brutally beaten, and executed by His depraved creatures? Jesus was the one person who didn’t deserve death. There was also the spiritual pain of taking on all those sins – but that is probably something you ignore entirely. >>After all, science isn't to be trusted - it gives us evolution.<< A theistic worldview is what gave rise to the scientific method. Science can be trusted to teach us much about the world, but not to make decisions for us. Scientists can tell us how some things happen, or how we can do some something, but that doesn’t make them an authority on whether or not those things should be done. Regarding evolution – don’t these threads always touch on this? – My beef is not with evolution or science. My beef is philosophical naturalism.
Originally Posted By RC Collins dshyates >>the big bang<< Which actually is highly compatible with the Bible. >>and cloning.<< Cloning is twinning. No big deal. But actively killing human beings, no matter how small, is wrong. Human beings, from a civil perspective, all should have their human rights honored, regardless of whether they are the result of cloning or not. I think turning human beings into property to be bought, sold, or experimented on without their consent is a bad idea.
Originally Posted By RC Collins ecdc: >>Again, most of it is Evangelical one-liners that play well in church, and sound inspired and thoughtful to believers, but really means nothing and offers nothing to further the discussion.<< I look forward to you actual response. Repeatedly dismissing my responses with non-responses certainly doesn't offer much to the further discussion. Do you really think I haven't heard your points before? If you lob the same points, expect the same answers. I still cite the Bible, I still cite the same history. The past and the Bible do not change, so the answers don't change. Sure, I could probably get more creative with the answers, but then people start complaining about not being able to follow analogies. johnno52: >>Post (145) to me is sermonizing and trying to take control and defend every statement of the discussion.<< What, you're not used to someone defending their faith with something besides "It just feels right to me?" Or should I not bother to respond to attacks, challenges, questions, etc.? >>I want to hear more about how the faith helped you with your medical care if you've had any!<< I'll tell you how it is helped me. I haven't wasted my time or money on "medicine" based on pantheism. I haven't bought into "just pray hard enough or use your mind" when I've needed medical care, because the Bible advises in FAVOR of medicine. I don't believe sickness and pain are illusions, as some religions teach, because my Bible confirms they are real. There has been all sorts of dangerous and deadly behavior I have avoided because I've followed Biblical morals, thus reducing my need for medical care.
Originally Posted By johnno52 >What, you're not used to someone defending their faith with something besides "It just feels right to me?" Or should I not bother to respond to attacks, challenges, questions, etc.?< No RC I know you are defending your faith but if where at a table is it right that one or two persons dominates for 10 minutes picking on every sentence that was said for the last hour? I don't respond to every statement I read, not because I am in agreement but I let the poster have his/her say. Even if someone challenges my statement still it doesn't mean I have to have a rebuttal. Do we always have to prove we are right and the others are wrong? >There has been all sorts of dangerous and deadly behavior I have avoided because I've followed Biblical morals, thus reducing my need for medical care.< I assume from your final statement you have never been seriously ill? Well if thats the case, I am very glad for you. However avoiding vices and adhering to biblical morals will not save you from many illnesses. This I will debate with you till infinity if you wish.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<<**a God trembled** I think this sort of reference is part of the reason why other christians are wary of mormons. It doesn't jive with the normal christian way of thinking.>> I don't think you're right on here, Mr X. What is the normal christian way of thinking when it comes to the suffering of Christ? In the accounts of this suffering, it's recorded that Jesus prayed "Father, if it be possible, let this pass cup from me." That an angel came to "strengthen" him. Do those things jive with the "normal" christian way of thinking?*** I only quoted that one part for a reason, Josh. Referring to Jesus as "a god", rather than just "god" is very disturbing to mainstream christians, as it implies polytheism. Since that IS what your religion actually ascribes to, I don't find anything wrong with it. I'm just pointing out that statements like that referring to their chosen god is part of the reason you guys freak them out.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>We’re here. How? I dare suggest that if anything now exists, then either something is eternal, or something not eternal came from nothing. Some say that the universe itself is eternal, but what we know about matter/energy and astronomy suggests otherwise. If you want to believe that something can spontaneously arise from nothing, then good luck functioning in the world. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that something (or someone) transcendent of the universe caused the universe.<< These questions are often answered by science, and quite well. But not all questions have answers yet, and you've demonstrated a common tactic among religionists: no evidence *is* evidence for my point of view. This, of course, is nonsense. The fact that we don't yet know all the details of the emergence of life, the universe etc., it certainly doesn't follow that the Bible is the word of God, Jesus is the savior, etc. It doesn't even follow that there is a God. >>Finally, there’s the Bible, a collection of 66 books or letters, really. The Bible makes certain claims about itself. Either those claims are true, or they aren’t. If Jesus affirmed the Old Testament and promised the New Testament, then I think they are worth at least checking out.<< You keep saying that I repeat myself, yet you're the one who keeps bringing up these circular arguments about the Bible and how it's some kind of evidence. Again, it's not, and you can keep saying it is. But it suffers from the same limitations of other books of scripture. You don't have consistent standards for the Bible. For something that seems to bolster your case, say, books that discuss the life of Jesus, you insist that the Bible is so great and reliable. As soon as I, or anyone else, brings up the problems with Biblical historicity, suddenly "it happened a long time ago" and "we can't be sure what the situation was." Like all religionists, you want to be absolutely certain about who god is, what Jesus is, etc., until something challenges your beliefs. Then, suddenly, things get vague and we're not really sure about this or that since "it was a long time ago" and "we don't know everything" and "the mysteries of god," etc. Again, you are like every other true believer in that you see your religion is unique; it's not, it's by and large like every other religion that exists today. Yours is no more special or no better off. Every religion has its own set of evidences, minutia, and inspiration stories and anecdotes, circular logic, etc., for why their way is the right way. Your sermons about how great the Bible is don't further the conversation, and do nothing to establish its authenticity. >>Modern scholarship does nothing of the sort<< Actually it does. You just dismiss it and rely on quackery that suggests there really were people that lived to be 900 years old. Modern scholarship has shown that the story of the Exodus simply didn't happen. Modern scholarship has shown that there are multiple stories in the Old and the New Testament that were added by different authors years, sometimes centuries, later. You have excuses for these things; fine, but don't distort the argument by somehow suggesting it's all full proof and the Bible has great evidence. It doesn't; it has very poor evidence but like all believers, its followers make it work. >>God is certainly not powerless nor aloof.<< Of course he is. God is entirely random in who he bestows his blessings on. He often does not interfere despite multiple prayers and calls for his intercession on the supplicants behalf. I know the religious have invented the excuse that "God's mysterious" or that "God answers all prayers, sometimes the answer is no" but that's yet another way to explain away the lack of evidence for God. >>Listeners don’t get messages all of the time, because they aren’t really listening or they don’t want to listen. This happens all of the time in everyday life. People can be in situations where they know that the right or sensible thing to do is – it can be very clear - and they still fail to do it.<< See above. It certainly can't be that God isn't there, or that he doesn't answer prayers; it's the problem with the person praying. They aren't listening; they didn't ask the right way; the answer was no. It seems like we're making a lot of excuses for a god, who, by all accounts, appears to be a total jerk. Despite his magical powers, he's managed to tolerate genocide, death, destruction, rape, pillaging (and on occasion, encouraged some of these things) and do nothing about it. All in the name of "free will". Some god. >>If it is really God’s command, then I have no place telling someone not to follow God. But there are consequences to any action. God has made it clear to punish murderers, and if someone murders someone else, we should react accordingly. CLAIMING God told you to kill someone does not mean God really did tell you that, obviously.<< You're still dodging the issue. You have no way of knowing if it was God's command or not. So, one more time: if someone like Dan Lafferty says that God commanded him to kill, then who are you to say otherwise? Your Bible has multiple stories of people being commanded to kill in God's name. If they aren't crazy, why is someone who says the same thing today? Or is it that Biblical stories are great, as long as we don't have to deal with them today? >>That doesn’t follow. I don’t believe the Bible *because* it records God commanding people to wipe out a thoroughly corrupt group of people (who sacrificed their own babies, by the way). I believe the Bible *and* the Bible contains instances where God commands specific people to carry out His specific judgment in a specific instance. I have no reason to believe God is telling a specific group to do this today with another nation.<< I know that's not why you believe the Bible. Again, you're missing the point. I'm asking why, if we have "evidence" according to the Bible that God commanded people to kill, then why not believe those same people who claim the same thing? >>Many of us have all of that, and guess what? We have come to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, and that the Bible is authoritative when it comes to telling us who God is and how to follow Jesus. There are people out there who can’t understand how anyone else can come to different conclusions than they have, and they think it they repeat everything all over again, louder, the people who disagree with them will come around. There are plenty of Christians who make this mistake, but you seem to one of the non-Christians who make this mistake.<< Oh, sweet irony. I certainly have no problem with people believing whatever they like. It's those that insist their fairy tales are better than someone else's that I have issue with. Those, for example, who try and pass laws restricting someone else's freedom because they've come to their conclusions about Jesus. >>On the contrary, history has shown there is no equivalence between any form of orthodox (small “oâ€) Christianity and the Islamofascists. Have Christians sinned big time? Yes. But overall, there is a huge difference.<< Not really. Christians have been just as violent in their history. But in fairness, they had a head start. But yet again, you insist on missing the larger point to debate minutia and to score individual points. The larger point is that it isn't beliefs, but circumstances that determine how a people will act. Universally, across cultures and religions, it's the rich and the educated that tend to adopt a more metaphorical view of faith. They typically do not engage in dangerous behavior (like say, praying for their daughter instead of taking her to a hospital) but rather are more grounded in reality. There are exceptions, of course. But a secular education and giving as many people as possible access to happiness and prosperity is the right way to go, not religious fundamentalism, which typically leads to violence and hatred. >>Hmmm, not in the case of orthodox Christian churches. That tends to be true of the cults, though. Perhaps you should take a glance at Christian journals and research organizations before making such a statement. I’ll point out yet again some relevant Bible verses in this matter, because the Bible doesn’t say “just believe and accept without questionâ€: Acts 17:11, 1 Thessalonians 5:21, 1 Peter 3:15, 1 John 4:1. That’s four different writers.<< Of course, what the Bible says and what people really believe are different things. You interpret the Bible a certain way just like everyone else; the difference is you insist your way is right, it's everyone else who's wrong. Again, convenient. >>That’s not our call to make. Otherwise, we’d be committing mass suicide (as some cultists have done). God is the author of life.<< Then he's a pretty crappy author. Would like to be born into HIV in Africa? So, God's the author of life, but free will invalidates his authorship? Again, that's a pretty weak God. >>It’s meaningless for God to condescend to take on a human nature, live a perfect sinless life, and then be mocked, brutally beaten, and executed by His depraved creatures? Jesus was the one person who didn’t deserve death. There was also the spiritual pain of taking on all those sins – but that is probably something you ignore entirely.<< Yes, it's meaningless. If he's really god, then living a sinless life isn't difficult. Being mocked, brutally beaten, and executed is nothing to him. He's god, and he knows he'll be in heaven. The Romans crucified hundreds, probably thousands of people. What Jesus went through was routine; horrible, but routine. The one thing he had, according to you, that the other victims of this process didn't have, is the knowledge that he was god and that he'd be in heaven when it was all over. Comparatively, he had it easy. >>A theistic worldview is what gave rise to the scientific method. Science can be trusted to teach us much about the world, but not to make decisions for us. Scientists can tell us how some things happen, or how we can do some something, but that doesn’t make them an authority on whether or not those things should be done. Regarding evolution – don’t these threads always touch on this? – My beef is not with evolution or science. My beef is philosophical naturalism.<< Evolution only comes up because, again, religionists insist on pushing their beliefs (which are no more or less valid than any other religious beliefs) on the rest of us. Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists in some locales in the United States don't have a choice on whether or not their children are taught so-called "intelligent design." (God was a terrible designer, BTW, but that's another issue.)
Originally Posted By Mr X ***It is entirely reasonable to conclude that something (or someone) transcendent of the universe caused the universe.*** ecdc already said pretty much what I was thinking, better than I could have. I just have to say though, this is a ridiculous sentence on the face of it. Nothing could be more UNreasonable than a statement such as this. It's purely on the level of unfounded speculation and imagination, an interesting fiction at best.
