| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/07/2007 04:52:11 PM · #526 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Scripture says, "Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin" ( Romans 14:23 ). That means any sin - from white lie to murder. And, Scripture says, "The wages of sin is death..." ( Romans 6:23 ). From that, it would appear that we are all doomed. But...Scripture also says, in the very next part of that same verse "...but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord". The "catch" is that in order to accept the gift of God, you have to believe in Him. |
Yes. A more accurate word to describe it is extortion. |
The dictionary says that extortion is
"1. The act or an instance of extorting."
"2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage."
"3. An excessive or exorbitant charge.
1) The dictionary says that "extort means "To obtain from another by coercion or intimidation". Do you feel coerced by God? Do you feel intimidated by God. If you answered "Yes" to either question, then you must believe in God. If not, then it cannot be extortion.
2) Do you feel that God is using His position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage illegally? If so, then you must believe in God. If not, then it cannot be extortion.
3) Do you feel that God's requirement that you believe in Christ is an exorbitant charge? If so, then an exorbitant charge for what? What is it that you wish to purchase that He is charging too much for? And how can He charge you anything for anything if He does not exist? And if he cannot charge you anything, then it cannot be extortion. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 05:05:39 PM · #527 |
God doesn't like Deviled Ham.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 05:31:44 PM · #528 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by RonB:
Scripture says, "Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin" ( Romans 14:23 ). That means any sin - from white lie to murder. And, Scripture says, "The wages of sin is death..." ( Romans 6:23 ). From that, it would appear that we are all doomed. But...Scripture also says, in the very next part of that same verse "...but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord". The "catch" is that in order to accept the gift of God, you have to believe in Him. |
Yes. A more accurate word to describe it is extortion. |
The dictionary says that extortion is
"1. The act or an instance of extorting."
"2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage."
"3. An excessive or exorbitant charge.
1) The dictionary says that "extort means "To obtain from another by coercion or intimidation". Do you feel coerced by God? Do you feel intimidated by God. If you answered "Yes" to either question, then you must believe in God. If not, then it cannot be extortion.
2) Do you feel that God is using His position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage illegally? If so, then you must believe in God. If not, then it cannot be extortion.
3) Do you feel that God's requirement that you believe in Christ is an exorbitant charge? If so, then an exorbitant charge for what? What is it that you wish to purchase that He is charging too much for? And how can He charge you anything for anything if He does not exist? And if he cannot charge you anything, then it cannot be extortion. |
Wrong.
You cannot purchase anything. God bought you at a price. When we first sinned the world became a fallen place. From that point on you were going to hell with no chance of escape. When Jesus died he bought us. Therefore you have the choice to be a willing bondservant of God or take the fate that has bestowed us all when we decided to first sin.
In the very begining we all were going to Heaven, and we were are own keepers. When we first sinned that went out the window. MAN made the decision. God did not tell you to eat the apple. You did that when you first sinned in your life. IF you could lead a sin free life, you would be able to enter the kingdom of Heaven without God's help. You are a sinner therefore you must be saved from hell. The only reason you need Jesus is becaus you fall short of the Glory of God.
Not extortion, but a second chance.
Message edited by author 2007-01-07 17:37:07. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 05:43:51 PM · #529 |
Modern Testament; The Book of Junk Food; Cheese Puffs 1:39, "....and the lord put his hand into the bag. A bright and blinding light then created in the image our lord, puffed cheese."
Message edited by author 2007-01-07 17:44:16.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 06:13:10 PM · #530 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Modern Testament; The Book of Junk Food; Cheese Puffs 1:39, "....and the lord put his hand into the bag. A bright and blinding light then created in the image our lord, puffed cheese." |
Rule 15 |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 06:27:51 PM · #531 |
Arggghhh!!! TAG TEAM!!! I'll try to get to you all.
Quick note:
Originally posted by RonB:
âIf you answered "Yes" to either question, then you must believe in God.â |
Jeepers, RonB! Youâre a better debater than that! We can argue about what motivates Hamlet without actually believing Hamlet lived.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 06:33:31 PM · #532 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Rule 15 |
This thread is way too important, more important than photography, to observe rules, so says the God transpiring this post.
I've got cheese powder on my fingers!!!! It's a sign.
Message edited by author 2007-01-07 18:33:58.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 06:33:47 PM · #533 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
I don't see how scientific method can be applied to explain one's awareness of one's own existence. |
Place a mark on an animal's head and put him in front of a mirror. Why would an animal reach up to his head to feel the thing he sees in the mirror or turn to get a better angle if there was no understanding of "me?" |
I said I don't see how the scientific method can explain self-awareness. Your example merely attempts to show that we are self-aware. It doesn't explain how we are self-aware.
Message edited by author 2007-01-07 20:23:32. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 08:38:56 PM · #534 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by milo655321:
If God is the source of morality, then it is moral to stone to death non-virgin brides and disobedient children and to own slaves at one period in time and not in another. In actuality, according to the New Testament, there are still no injunctions against owning slaves.
If we define âSteveâ as incapable of murder and Steve then stabs someone and that person dies, Steve, of course, could not have committed murder by definition. You define God as the source of morality and, therefore, anything God does/commands is moral. There is no way to independently judge Godâs morality and, therefore, all actions can be ultimately justifiable through appeals to faith in Godâs changing morality. |
Don't get me going again milo, your answer reflects that you do not grasp the situation. I bolded the part that reveals this to me. You first tell me you are denying that there is any absolute standard ("Iâm not claiming there is an absolute standard") and then you complain that there is no such standard to judge God's morality. Which is it? Until you can come up with a consistent argument, I don't have much more to say. |
A) There is no absolute standard of morality.
B) There is no standard at all by which to determine Godâs changing standards of morality. (i.e., Old Testament v. New Testament v. some possible future change of morality)
A does not equal B. Youâve mistakenly equated the two statements.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you are pointing out that there is no actual absolute morality, that's great. Then we are stuck arguing that you feel God is a bad person while I think he's a good guy. |
Even more to the point, Iâm arguing that he doesnât exist and that the morality (acceptance of genocide, stoning to death and slavery) you are defending are actually the output of a Bronze Age tribal culture.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's a quote I posted above for you milo. I think it fits.
"Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist." --C. S. Lewis |
And hereâs my quote for you:
Ain't nothing in the world like a big eyed girl
To make me act so funny, make me spend my money
Make me feel real loose like a long necked goose
Like a--oh baby, that's a-what I like!
-- The Big Bopper
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 08:54:27 PM · #535 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
Wrong.
You cannot purchase anything. God bought you at a price. When we first sinned the world became a fallen place. From that point on you were going to hell with no chance of escape. When Jesus died he bought us. Therefore you have the choice to be a willing bondservant of God or take the fate that has bestowed us all when we decided to first sin.
In the very begining we all were going to Heaven, and we were are own keepers. When we first sinned that went out the window. MAN made the decision. God did not tell you to eat the apple. You did that when you first sinned in your life. IF you could lead a sin free life, you would be able to enter the kingdom of Heaven without God's help. You are a sinner therefore you must be saved from hell. The only reason you need Jesus is becaus you fall short of the Glory of God.
Not extortion, but a second chance. |
Itâs a nice myth. Prometheus gets his liver picked at by giant eagle every day for stealing fire from the gods and giving to us. Superman diverted a nuclear warhead from New Jersey and turned back time to save Lois Lane. Donât you feel bad for not thanking Prometheus when you use fire or Superman when you visit New Jersey?
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 09:25:26 PM · #536 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
A) There is no absolute standard of morality.
B) There is no standard at all by which to determine Godâs changing standards of morality. (i.e., Old Testament v. New Testament v. some possible future change of morality)
A does not equal B. Youâve mistakenly equated the two statements.
|
I understand the difference. I'm just not interested in having a conversation related to B because I don't think it's worthwhile. There are lots of standards we could hold up to see if God's command was moral.
1) The more Hittites (or whomever we were talking about) killed, the more moral. (Check, God's actions would be pretty moral then.)
2) The most good for the most people. (Maybe yes, Maybe no. It depends on how many Israelites there were compared to the Hittites.)
3) Killing is always wrong. (God's actions were not moral.)
Personally I don't care about non-absolute standards of morality. They boil down to "I feel this to be right." and nothing more. You can answer your own question about whether God's actions were moral for whatever standard you were using. Why do you need help? |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 10:09:24 PM · #537 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I understand the difference. I'm just not interested in having a conversation related to B because I don't think it's worthwhile. There are lots of standards we could hold up to see if God's command was moral.
1) The more Hittites (or whomever we were talking about) killed, the more moral. (Check, God's actions would be pretty moral then.)
2) The most good for the most people. (Maybe yes, Maybe no. It depends on how many Israelites there were compared to the Hittites.)
3) Killing is always wrong. (God's actions were not moral.)
Personally I don't care about non-absolute standards of morality. They boil down to "I feel this to be right." and nothing more. You can answer your own question about whether God's actions were moral for whatever standard you were using. Why do you need help? |
Fair enough, but your absolute standards of morality boil down to âI believe this to be rightâ. Not much difference.
p.s. If you ever try to take slaves, I will try to stop you. ;D
|
|
|
|
01/07/2007 10:11:20 PM · #538 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Fair enough, but your absolute standards of morality boil down to âI believe this to be rightâ. Not much difference. |
If God turns out to be a fraud, I totally agree. If He is real, well, absolute can have meaning after all. |
|
|
|
01/07/2007 11:42:18 PM · #539 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by boomtap:
Wrong.
You cannot purchase anything. God bought you at a price. When we first sinned the world became a fallen place. From that point on you were going to hell with no chance of escape. When Jesus died he bought us. Therefore you have the choice to be a willing bondservant of God or take the fate that has bestowed us all when we decided to first sin.
In the very begining we all were going to Heaven, and we were are own keepers. When we first sinned that went out the window. MAN made the decision. God did not tell you to eat the apple. You did that when you first sinned in your life. IF you could lead a sin free life, you would be able to enter the kingdom of Heaven without God's help. You are a sinner therefore you must be saved from hell. The only reason you need Jesus is becaus you fall short of the Glory of God.
Not extortion, but a second chance. |
Itâs a nice myth. Prometheus gets his liver picked at by giant eagle every day for stealing fire from the gods and giving to us. Superman diverted a nuclear warhead from New Jersey and turned back time to save Lois Lane. Donât you feel bad for not thanking Prometheus when you use fire or Superman when you visit New Jersey? |
Well it isn't extortion. In fact God doesn't ask us for anything. He doesn't need me to thank Him for helping superman divert that nuclear war head. He places no guilt on us for any of our sins. He only promises to save us from them if we ask him. You are not bound to Old Testement law. There is no need to work for God. There is no guilt except that which you place on yourself. God is bigger than the petty things we deal with on Earth. One day we will all see for ourselves, and the choice is up to each one of us. Do what you will, and I will respect your decision as I ask you to respect mine. We can agree to disagree, agreeably.
Message edited by author 2007-01-07 23:44:57. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 01:04:17 AM · #540 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
You fall short of God. You cannot earn your way to Heaven. You cannot do anything to get there. |
How interesting that it's not even possible for the creation of a perfect being to be good enough. Omniscience can create an entire universe, but can't even get a "pet project" right. Free Will is no excuse since every thought would have been known all along, and every action predetermined. The good news is that whether you're right or I am, I won't ever be shaking hands with Jeffrey Dahmer. ;-)
Originally posted by boomtap:
What is it that drives science crazy about God and religion? |
Scientists don't burn the faithful at the stake for contradicting their beliefs. They don't try to get the Bible thrown out of church, they don't wipe out entire civilizations to spread their theories, they don't advocate intolerance, slavery, bigotry, racism, sexism, or murder when the head scientist says it's OK (even if it's "just this once"), they don't claim to have a 1700 year old handbook of all the answers, they don't use miracles and magic to explain phenomena, they don't claim that everyone is doomed from birth and that the only hope of rescue is to join a club, they don't use stories as evidence of fact, they don't request 5% or 10% of your gross income to help spread their wisdom, they don't excuse mass murder simply for expressing belief in their leader... the list is longer than I care to think about right now.
Message edited by author 2007-01-08 01:47:14. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 01:21:19 AM · #541 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by boomtap:
You fall short of God. You cannot earn your way to Heaven. You cannot do anything to get there. |
How interesting that it's not even possible for the creation of a perfect being to be good enough. Omniscience can create an entire universe, but can't even get a "pet project" right. Free Will is no excuse since every thought would have been known all along, and every action predetermined. The good news is that whether you're right or I am, I won't ever be shaking hands with Jeffrey Dahmer. ;-)
Originally posted by boomtap:
What is it that drives science crazy about God and religion? |
Scientists don't burn the faithful at the stake for contradicting their beliefs. They don't try to get the Bible thrown out of church, they don't wipe out entire civilizations to spread their theories, they don't advocate intolerance, slavery, bigotry, racism, sexism, or murder when the head scientist says it's OK "just this once," they don't claim to have a 1700 year old handbook of all the answers, they don't use miracles and magic to explain phenomena, they don't claim that everyone is doomed from birth and that the only hope of rescue is to join a club, they don't use stories as evidence of fact, they don't excuse mass murder simply for expressing belief in their leader... the list is longer than I care to think about right now. |
You are made perfect through Jesus. God gave you your own chance to be perfect and you fell. Yes he knew you would, but true love comes from choice not control. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 01:33:07 AM · #542 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
You are made perfect through Jesus. God gave you your own chance to be perfect and you fell. Yes he knew you would, but true love comes from choice not control. |
Oh, I see. A perfect, omniscient being intentionally designed humans to be a failure and the only way to correct the problem was to allow his own son to be tortured and killed by humans thousands of years later, publicize it through the writing of a few humans 70-100 years after that, and then set the condition that even tribesmen in the wilds of Borneo are free to commit murder and practice slavery, but are doomed to burn forever somewhere outside this universe unless they profess to believe in something they probably never even heard of. Makes perfect sense. :-/
Message edited by author 2007-01-08 01:47:43. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 07:46:46 AM · #543 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by boomtap:
You are made perfect through Jesus. God gave you your own chance to be perfect and you fell. Yes he knew you would, but true love comes from choice not control. |
Oh, I see. A perfect, omniscient being intentionally designed humans to be a failure and the only way to correct the problem was to allow his own son to be tortured and killed by humans thousands of years later, publicize it through the writing of a few humans 70-100 years after that, and then set the condition that even tribesmen in the wilds of Borneo are free to commit murder and practice slavery, but are doomed to burn forever somewhere outside this universe unless they profess to believe in something they probably never even heard of. Makes perfect sense. :-/ |
Shannon, God did not design humans to be a failure. He designed them to have the ability to CHOOSE to obey or to disobey ( fail ).
For thousands of years ( millions if you believe scientists ) men and women have joined to bring children into the world knowing full well, ahead of time, that their children will CHOOSE to disobey many, many times. But they still did it, and still do it. Ask yourself WHY? |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 09:27:27 AM · #544 |
Originally posted by RonB:
God did not design humans to be a failure. He designed them to have the ability to CHOOSE to obey or to disobey ( fail ).
For thousands of years ( millions if you believe scientists ) men and women have joined to bring children into the world knowing full well, ahead of time, that their children will CHOOSE to disobey many, many times. But they still did it, and still do it. Ask yourself WHY? |
An omniscient being would have known the consequences of designing the capacity for choice, knew every action you would take before you were even born, AND presumably could have prevented the possibility of bad choices so offensive as to require the destruction of the project. This is like a perfect chef deciding to make a flawed macaroni salad when he knows the ideal recipe (and then blaming the salad for the result). Men and women are not considered perfect and all-knowing, nor do they have the ability to prevent their children from disobeying when they are created. If they didn't choose to create children, they would quickly cease to exist. Is that the case with an omniscient being?
Message edited by author 2007-01-08 09:47:53. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 09:46:59 AM · #545 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
God did not design humans to be a failure. He designed them to have the ability to CHOOSE to obey or to disobey ( fail ).
For thousands of years ( millions if you believe scientists ) men and women have joined to bring children into the world knowing full well, ahead of time, that their children will CHOOSE to disobey many, many times. But they still did it, and still do it. Ask yourself WHY? |
An omniscient being would have known the consequences of designing the capacity for choice,... |
True
Originally posted by scalvert:
...knew every action you would take before you were even born,... |
True
Originally posted by scalvert:
...AND presumably could have prevented the possibility of bad choices... |
True
Originally posted by scalvert:
so offensive as to require the destruction of the project. |
There were no bad choices so offensive as to require the destruction of the project. If there had been, the project would have been destroyed, which, as can be seen by our very presence, has not been done.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Men and women are not considered perfect and all-knowing, nor do they have the ability to prevent their children from disobeying when they are created. Nice try, though. |
And if they WERE all-knowing, and DID have the ability to prevent their children from disobeying, WOULD THEY do so? Or would they willingly choose to permit their children the CHOICE of disobeying or not? Would they rather rear children who are capable of exercising choice, or children who are incapable of doing so? If the former, then how do you develop capable children without permitting them to exercise choice as they grow? |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 09:48:21 AM · #546 |
Please forgive me my absence.
Originally posted by RonB:
Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Scientists really believe that they exist. But so far, they have been unable to "prove" that they exist. Their existence is "inferred" because they are needed to explain things that ARE observerable / measurable.
Same with God - We who believe, believe. We cannot "prove" that He exists, but His existence is "inferred" because He is needed to explain things that ARE observable / measurable ( changed lives, miraculous cures, etc. ) |
I don't think that this point has been addressed. It may be addressed in each part.
Part One - Dark matter is difficult to detect, because it appears to emit or reflect energy on no known frequencies or in detectable amounts. However, it has been theorised as "needing to exist" because other theories postulate that something corresponding to it should be a natural outcome of those theories (eg Big Bang theory). Conveniently, the observable universe acts as if the dark matter *is* there - we have called it "dark matter".
Observable evidence for it was discovered in the US in August 2006 (a drag force effect on a galaxy).
Most recently (yesterday) it was revealed that it is possible to view the way that dark matter bends light in accordance with our predictions. From these observations, we have been able to draw up a map of an area of dark matter.
So - it can be inferred (with a little more effort) in the same way that gravity is inferred: we see gravity's influence, even if we cannot specifically detect gravitons.
Part Two - Can the same be said for God. Do we need to have a god to explain changed lives and miraculous cures? Is there no other explanation?
Well, as it turns out, there are a number of powerful alternative explanations. Professor Kathy Sykes is an unlikely proponent of faith healing: it appears to work. However, she notes, it also works when similar practices are exercised in a secular context. In her view, the amazing thing is not the faith healing, but the self healing. The power of the mind over the body is not fully understood.
Ironically, this may be an argument for recommending faith healing (which I do not accept if, as appears may be possible, the healing can be successfully divorced from the "faith" element).
So - it appears that a god is far from the "only" or "most likely" explanation for the proposed "miracles".
Originally posted by RonB:
Guess it's just a matter of faith, either way. |
Well - you can yourself with the correct equipment view the direct effects of something that we call dark matter. If you can come up with a better explanation for it, no-one is stopping you. No faith is required: I will feel little or no reluctance to embrace a revised or replacement explanation for it if the new theory is more persuasive, or if new evidence turns up that does not fit with the old theory.
Can you say the same about your religion (PS teapotism offers an easier way to salvation)?
Message edited by author 2007-01-08 09:49:05.
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 09:53:52 AM · #547 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by boomtap:
Something created the first something... |
It should be self-evident that this is not possible. If something is around to do the creating, then whatever is created can't be the first something. |
Exactly. So what can science tell me then? Nothing really except that for us to be, there needed to be something that is beyond what we can explain using science. Somthing that is not understandable by our pathetic little minds. |
I agree: something currently beyond us. So why invent a "god" who did it, and then suppose (in order to explain some more things that were not immediately obvious 2000 years ago) that this "god" interferes with our everyday lives?
|
|
|
|
01/08/2007 09:57:49 AM · #548 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Men and women are not considered perfect and all-knowing, nor do they have the ability to prevent their children from disobeying when they are created. |
And if they WERE all-knowing, and DID have the ability to prevent their children from disobeying, WOULD THEY do so? |
Well, the "son" of God would apparently be Christ, not us. We're more like pets in this respect. Regardless, if you were all-knowing and had the ability to foresee and prevent creatures from making a choice that would doom all future generations and require the sacrifice of your first-born to correct, then I would certainly hope so! |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 10:03:38 AM · #549 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Men and women are not considered perfect and all-knowing, nor do they have the ability to prevent their children from disobeying when they are created. |
And if they WERE all-knowing, and DID have the ability to prevent their children from disobeying, WOULD THEY do so? |
Well, the "son" of God would apparently be Christ, not us. We're more like pets in this respect. Regardless, if you were all-knowing and had the ability to foresee and prevent creatures from making a choice that would doom all future generations and require the sacrifice of your first-born to correct, then I would certainly hope so! |
And that's the difference between you and God. Lucky for us all that you are not the one who had to make that choice, else we wouldn't be able to discuss this at all, since we would have no ability to choose to do so. |
|
|
|
01/08/2007 10:04:13 AM · #550 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I don't think that this point has been addressed. |
I did cover that one earlier. The nature of dark matter is (so far) unknown, but we can predict it and make some indirect measurements already. The nature of God is defined as unknowable. There's a huge difference between unknown and unknowable. |
|
