The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2011, 07:37 AM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2011 07:43 AM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(09-10-2011 12:06 AM)Sines Wrote:  Man you talk a lot! Seriously, you talk more than me... and I don't know when to shut up.

LOL...alas, I am an admitted windbag. Good morning Sines, I will try to break this up as little as possible, as I would rather not discourage conversation due to the length of the replies, however, there are some things said that I feel should be responded to individually, so this may not be as short as you might like.


(09-10-2011 12:06 AM)Sines Wrote:  So, I'm not going to reply to this whole thing. There's one point I felt I really wanted to address, so it's below. If you want me to address any other point of your reply, say so, but try to keep it to only a few points. There's a lot to respond to, and if I were to respond to even half of it, this would go out of control right quick. I'm not dodging, I just don't have that kind of patience to hit on everything Big Grin Also, in the future, try to edit your replies. You respond to every sentence I write, when you could probably condense a lot more. The less you write, the easier it is to respond to. Again, I don't mean to be rude, this is just a request that will facilitate conversation in the future.

As far as breaking the posts up, it is for two primary reasons at least: 1) to lessen charges of either not listening (or hearing) what the other says, and 2) the charge that I avoided something.

No worries, though, if you do not wish to respond, that's okay, I will reply to that which you do respond to. It is just a conversation...there are no rules.

(09-10-2011 12:06 AM)Sines Wrote:  
(08-10-2011 02:19 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(08-10-2011 10:31 AM)Sines Wrote:  What practical benefit have you gained from your religion that would only exist if the religion were true?

This would be a long list, actually. I once held a worldview very similar to those here. I determined right and wrong according to my own standard, which led to drugs and alcohol. By sixteen I was a full-blown alcoholic and addict. Tried for years to quit, but could not. God took that away rather quickly.

Now this could be just a reformation of the old me, rather than the transformation I believe occurred. I may be an addled witless fool who's trust and faith in God and His word is misplaced. But, that is personal, as a relationship with God is a personal relationship between God and man.

Since conversion, the practical benefits are numerous. One of the more important benefits is actually having a concern for others, and going beyond that, the sloooow, pain ful process of actually putting the needs of others,,,before myself. You see, I have always been a very selfish person. Still am, but not as bad as once I was.

Two things. First off, I've heard of these "I was a terrible person before I found god" stories. I have no idea how many of them are true, but they always come off to me as questionable. Perhaps your story is true. But even if it is... it has nothing to do with me.

First, let me just say that I was worse than a terrible person, and have only scratched the surface as far as dealing with my character. I am not trying to give the impression that I am some great person without fault, nothing could be further from the truth. I am my own worst critic. And you are right, it really has nothjing to do with you. ach person is responsible for their own actions, determinations, et cetera.

(09-10-2011 12:06 AM)Sines Wrote:  I've never taken a single drug that wasn't either proscribed to me, or given over the counter. I've never taken any of those beyond the recommended dose. And, I don't drink. I've had drinks on occasion, but those are always special occasions. And I don't mean "It's new years eve, so I'll have a drink," I mean, "I lost a bet, guess I have to drink." I've only ever had more than a sip of alcohol twice in my life. And that was solely at the request of friends who wanted to see me drunk (Which is what they got out of that bet I lost Big Grin). Furthermore, I care about others. A week or so ago, I spent about an hour keeping an eye on my roommate who had drunk himself stupid. Lying on the floor in the bathroom (his size, combined with the smallness of the bathroom made moving him pretty much not an option), I gave him one of my pillows to help him, and got it back puked on.


Glad to hear that drugs and alcohol are not something you have to deal with. When I was young, I envied my brother...because he was not addicted to either.




(09-10-2011 12:06 AM)Sines Wrote:  Now, maybe not everyone on this board is as booze and narcotic free as I am. But if that's how you were back then, then you were nothing like me. At my very worst, I used to be a bit violent, when pushed. But that was when I was very young. These days, my worst attributes are my laziness, forgetfulness, and irresponsibility. But I'm trying to improve those, and I've been succeeding.

But as for not doing drugs, and being nice to people... well, I've probably been getting more considerate as I get older, but I've always cared about others. I didn't need god for that, and, really, most people don't.

I remember when my mom asked me why one should be moral without some higher power or some such (Not in an accusatory way, but in an honest question kind of way). I told her to punch me in the face, that I would absolve her of all guilt. She refused, I urged her on, and she eventually lightly poked me, laughing. Most people are just naturally nice. She couldn't stand the idea of hurting me. That's something you don't need god for.


"Most people are just naturally nice."

I actually disagree with that. I would concede that "most people are naturally nice...under normal circumstances." And I do believe there are people who are exceptional, and of good character, but in my study of both human nature and the doctrine of the Bible, I have found that it is true that most people are actually not very nice at all.

It is natural that your Mom would not want to hurt you, a healthy relationship between mother and child is one of the strongest bonds on earth. But there are Moms out there that have hurt their children, and it seems that instances of that grow more and more, and get worse and worse.

Relationships differ of course, but when conditions are normal and without stress, people tend to behave in a civil manner. But under circumstances beyond the norm, what is in man will often come out.

As far as needing God, that is something that I do not expect you to understand, particularly in relation to me. First, God does not necessarily make one "nice" because we have a relationship to Him, but opens our hearts to things we did not realize before. Before conversion, I considered myself a pretty good guy. We all grow up, I think, placing ourselves in the role of the good guy, so to speak. Sometimes the things we do or did, we do not see as wrong, because we are the ones that decide what is right and wrong. Okay, I'll stop therre for length's sake.



(09-10-2011 12:06 AM)Sines Wrote:  My question was not what benefits religion had provided you. Obviously there are some, I can't deny that. I should rightly be laughed at and mocked if I said religious beliefs held no benefits. But what I asked was what benefits does religion provide that would only exist if religion was true? If an engineer doesn't have a proper understanding of electrical theory, he won't be able to build a computer. That's how we know that our understanding of electricity strongly reflects the truth (As I would never say any scientific theory is fully true).

I have to reiterate that I am not a religionist. I am a Christian, and there is a huge difference between the two.

While religiosity has for the most part benefits, ultimately, it is still...religiosity. Loyalty to a particular religion can have adverse effects on mankind, and probably worse in most cases. History is filled with examples of this. So what benefits do religion have? In some cases, there are some. But religion for the most part is not to be thought synonymous with relationship with, and to, God.

There has been only one religion that was given by God, and that is Judaism. Israel failed miserably in that particular religion, as is witnessed by the history found in scripture, as well as the condition of the religion when Christ came. He dealt severely with those who had taken a legitimate religious practice and corrupted it. Judaism, according to the New Testament, was meant to be a "tutor," to lead men to Christ (Who is God, the Savior) by showing them their sin.

And lest you think I am preaching at you (and you might, which would be natural, since we are talking about God...lol), I will just finish this quote by saying, even as we can observe and measure electricity, even so, relationship with God (not religion) can also be measured. If we are in our house and the lights stop working, we can right away guess there might be a problem with the power source. We can put a meter to the source, and verify this. Even so, if we understand that which scripture teaches (and keep in mind that revelation [knowledge about God] was progressive, even as our understanding of electricity was) indicates relationship with God, we can recognize when there is a problem with the source. Where the analogy breaks down is that there is no comparable power source to replicate electricity , unless we look at battery versus line voltage. If we had a clock that was line fed with battery backup, we might know the clock was running, but we might think it fed by line voltage, though it is running on battery power, leaving us unaware that the source it should be running on is not present.

Okay, trying real hard here, Sines, but, sometimes it takes a lot of words to express a concept. I hope you will bear with me. Think of it as a training exercise...lol.


(09-10-2011 12:06 AM)Sines Wrote:  All of those changes do not require the existence of a god. Indeed, as other religions can produce the same changes in people, we can safely conclude that there is something in the nature of the religion itself, not it's ultimate truth, that does the work. Believing in a higher power might make it easier to make those changes, but the higher power doesn't need to exist.

If you look at the religions of the world, you will find some extreme differences between them.

In short (maybe...), there is, I believe, a power source for every religion in the world. I view true relationship with God to be the line voltage, so to speak (since I have developed the concept, I will try to stick with that), and religion to be battery fed, so to speak.

The former is direct power, while the latter is a weak, though still recognizable source. When the results are examined, they can be distinguished from each other. Both give the appearance of being valid, functional, and operational, but both are different with different results.

Understand that I believe that within many faiths, though they differ in doctrine, there are those who have, or will have, a true relationship with God. This is of course within the bounds of sound doctrine, but even in fellowships with sound doctrine, just as in fellowships with doctrine that is not so sound, there are those who do not know enough to be either in relationship or out, or, those who do not know enough to be saved or lost.

Okay, moving on.


(09-10-2011 12:06 AM)Sines Wrote:  So, maybe it is christianity that is helping you become a better person. But I'm sure judaism and buddhism can have the same effect. And so does humanism, the moral beliefs of most outspoken atheists (i.e. the dudes you'll find here).


Christianity does not produce salvation, salvation produces Christianity. Christianity is not like religion, in that "if you do this, this, and this...you will be a Christian. God converts a person, and they begin the Christian walk, or life.

In my own life, I at times act very "unChristian." My anger is not Christian, sometimes my thoughts are not Christian, et cetera. I am not a Christian because I do "good works," I am a Christian because Christ indwells me. Sounds silly, I am sure, but that is just what scripture teaches. I hope you understand what I am saying, and I will move on.


(09-10-2011 12:06 AM)Sines Wrote:  Honestly, I don't think it's the religion though. At least, not directly. Religions are package deals, including both how we should behave, and what the nature of reality is. Those how we should behaves do not, I believe, all originate inside the religion, but were rather adopted from outside the religion, as they were good ideas. I'm sure you'll agree that, for example, the Israelites knew that killing and stealing were wrong before Moses came down from the mountain.

While Christianity as taught by scripture does teach that there are things we do and don't do, it also teaches that apart from the indwelling and yielding to the Spirit of God, we will not be able, in truth, to fulfill them in the sense of reality.

For example, scripture teaches that we are to love our neighbor. There is a difference between "loving" our neighbor and simply "not doing things that might indicate we don't." Most would agree that adultery is bad, however, avoiding adultery starts in the heart, when we can overcome our natural instinct of "admiring" a(nother) beautiful woman.

While I believe that right and wrong began in the beginning, as God did communicate directly to man in the beginning, and from there man's separation from God led to man devising and perverting right and wrong according to his own standard, I also believe that there is within man an instictual knowledge of right and wrong. But again, natural man (one outside of divine relationship) will act and react according to his surrounding circumstances. My definition of integrity is "doing the right thing...when no-one is looking."

Because we live in a country where we are very sheltered, certain conditions are not in place to put our "goodness" to the test. In some countries, Christians are being put to death on a daily basis. In some countries, people are starving to death. How would we do under such conditions? I myself would like to think that, like many Christians in countries like that, I would die rather than renounce Jesus Christ. But until in that position, it would remain to be seen.


(09-10-2011 12:06 AM)Sines Wrote:  So while not being addicted to substances, and being nice to others might be taught in the religion, they didn't originate there. Those were good ideas on their own, with or without a god backing them up.

In some religions, historically, drugs were a major factor. They were used to "commune" with their gods, which I believe to be demons. "Sorcery" in the bible is a translation of the word we get "pharmacy" from. I am not an advocate of the Psych-Med business, and believe it to be one of America's greatest enemies. It is Big Business, and I believe it to be a work of man's greatest enemy, Satan. I have experienced this process in my own life, as well as seen it's results in the lives of many.

Even certain medical drugs, ever listened to the "disclaimers?"

There is a need for medications at times, but "over-prescription" is a major problem, I believe. In this area, I believe we have science that is being used for gain, and nothing else.

(09-10-2011 12:06 AM)Sines Wrote:  And you were ultimately a good person, because you cared about whether or not you were a good person.


Actually, wrong on both counts. I will not go into who I was, what I did, and how I thought. But I can tell you...I was not a good person. I thought I was.

And understand also, the addictions were not the problem, it was myself that was the problem. After the Lord delivered me from those addictions...that was when the hard part started. I patted myself on the back in a very religious way, thinking that because they were gone, I was now a "better" person. I was wrong. It was at that point that I began seeing the person I was, and saw the real problems. Sure, I could get along with friends, treat strangers civilly, but I can tell you, I was the same person...just sober now. It has been a growing process, which scripture teaches, that I doubt will ever end or be made complete while I am on this earth.

I literally shudder at who I was, though, and am glad to have an awareness of the reality of that person. And again, I am not saying, "I have arrived!" I am still learning, and growing.

(09-10-2011 12:06 AM)Sines Wrote:  If you truly were an evil bastard, you wouldn't care that you were, and wouldn't try to change it.


I truly was, and I truly didn't. I thought that my addictions were basically my worst problems. The fact is, they weren't. It is very difficult for someone that has never had this problem to understand this. Those who have or are in the throes of addiction would, for the most part, understand exactly what I am saying.

There is more involved with addiction than just drinking or taking drugs. For example, take someone who beats his wife (and for the record I was taught never, ever, hit a woman, and to this day I have not, so understand this is hypothetical): if he is a drunk, people will think he hits her because of the alcohol. That is not the reason. He hits her because that is who he is (a coward).


(09-10-2011 12:06 AM)Sines Wrote:  Religion may have helped, but you wouldn't have felt the need for help if there wasn't good in you to start with.

When I was converted, I was on my way to a "religious career," really. Thankfully, as scripture teaches, God will lead and guide His children, and He will "train them up in the way they should go," even as He commands man to do with their children.

I may share my conversion with you at some point, but for now, understand that it was not a matter of me "finding religion" or "finding God," it was a matter of Him finding me. I did not seek Him out. I did not try to "better myself."

(09-10-2011 12:06 AM)Sines Wrote:  So, you didn't provide an answer to my question.

As I said, the list would be long. You think my posts are long...you should see them when I really get going...lol.

(09-10-2011 12:06 AM)Sines Wrote:  Nothing about what happened to you required Yahweh to exist. Plenty of people in different religions, or even under other philosophies, have become better persons. Even if a god exists, there's no reason to think he truly had any hand in your change at all. You made the decision to change, and perhaps with religion providing helping encouragement, succeeded. But one thing is for certain. If people can make those changes in themselves without Yahweh or Jesus, then it's entirely possible that, even if they exist, they didn't do a thing, because they saw that you could do it on your own.

What happened to me, I feel, indicates a supernatural intervention. As I said, my conversion was not something I planned out, or sought after, but it happened even as scripture teaches it will happen, through the intervention of God. There is a difference between religion and relationship, between man working his way to God, and God coming to man.

Have to get going, and I hope I haven't bored you to tears, but, if there is one thing I can do, I can talk...lol. The question is (and this is a question I often ask of myself)...is it all talk?

Could be.

Have a great day.

S.T.

Note, I see this ended up being long despite my efforts...sorry about that.
(09-10-2011 05:44 AM)The Holy Goat Wrote:  
(08-10-2011 02:19 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  When it comes to dating procedures, I have been skeptical of this "science" for a long time.

See here for an interesting read.


Or maybe here.

Hello HG, I looked briefly at the link, and will look at it in more detail when I get the chance, but, as I have said before, this is really a non-issue for me.

The question is, are both sides offering truthful responses? Of course both sides will do what they can to "verify" their findings, everyone does that. What is their motive?

As for me, the age of the earth is something I am willing to admit..."I don't know."

I personally believe in a young earth, and have seen no "evidence" that compels me to believe otherwise, but at the same time, it would not hurt my feelings nor change my beliefs either way.

Thanks for the link,

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2011, 06:33 PM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Eh, not too bad. At least there were fewer comments on individual sentences. Anyway, there's not too much I can add to what you said that I haven't already said. Fortunately for me, it doesn't take much to get me writing for a while Big Grin

Now, I'll admit, I was never as bad as you describe yourself. At my worst, I had a tendency to get violent, and feel my actions were justified. While I will not say that they were, looking back I'll still say that I was provoked, and that I did try to resist. While those actions were wrong, I wasn't lashing out at every minor problem.

Still, I'm reminded of a comic book character. A superhero with incredible telepathic abilities. Unfortunately for her, so was her brother, and he wanted to help her become better. By forcing her to rip out all of her sensory organs, and rely on her mind alone. He only got as far as her eyes and tongue before he was stopped. At this point, she describes herself as having the potential to have been just as big of a monster as her brother. But she didn't want that. She didn't want revenge on her brother (Well, not too much), more importantly, she didn't want to be her brother. So, despite her somewhat sociopathic tendancies, she rewrote her mind, to become the caring, loving person she is.

When her and the main character (Empowered) are stuck on a burning space station, with only enough power to teleport one of them to safety, the telepath forces herself into Empowered's mind, and puppets her to the emergency teleporter, against Empowered's vigorous protest. She tells her that if only one of them can survive, it should be the genuinely nice person, not the person who had to cheat at it.

The way I see it, though, is that the telepath never had to make herself good. While her hatred of her brother might motivate her in some way, there's no reason she couldn't have taken the time to hunt him down, trap him, and slowly and tortuously murder him, all the while mocking him for making her a better telepath. But instead, she decided to become everything he wasn't. Why would she make herself into such a kind person, the kind of person who sacrifice themselves against the protests of the person they intended to save, if there wasn't good in her already? Maybe not much, but there was some there.

That's why I can't believe anyone who eventually becomes a decent person didn't have some good in them to start. Maybe their empathy had been stifled under their greed. Maybe they never really thought out what their actions did to those around them. But why would a person who is ultimately selfish, with no concern for others and only for themselves, wish to change themselves into someone who does? There is literally nothing to gain for the truly evil.

Maybe you couldn't have done it alone, but you couldn't have done it at all if there wasn't at least some part of you that wanted to.

Now then, you disagree with me that most people are naturally nice. Aren't we getting the whole nihilistic atheist and optimistic christian thing backwards?

At any rate, I'll agree with you that people will, when at their worst, care for themselves primarily. But that doesn't mean we're ultimately a bunch of selfish bastards. Once a persons basic needs are met, it does take much before kindness comes out. I may fight another person for a loaf of bread if I'm starving, but if I have a sustainable food supply, I'd be more likely to share some of it with a fellow zombie holocaust survivor than I would be to eat up and enjoy more food.

We're naturally compassionate creatures, hell, when the Emperor is begging for his life in Revenge of the Sith, I actually felt bad for him. Even though I knew he was a genocidal monster who was just faking. Even though, more importantly, I knew he was just some guy putting on an act (An act of a guy putting on an act... so meta). People cry at movies because they feel for people whom they know aren't even real.

Maybe I can't understand what it was like to be the bastard you used to be. But maybe you don't know what it's like to just naturally be a decent person. Perhaps you're view of humanity is too colored by your own hard-won morality, to not realize that it comes more naturally to most people.

Sure, people can do evil, but it is easier, a thousand times easier, to get people to do evil while they think they do good. This is one of my major problems with religion (And based on what you've said, I think you agree). But they are ultimately doing what they think is good. They are not fundamentally evil people, the terrible things they do does not come from a desire to inflict pain and suffering, but from their ignorance of the facts. If people were naturally evil, you wouldn't need religion or ideaologies to convince people to do wrong. No, the easiest way to convince people to do evil, is to convince them that they are doing good.

As for parents hurting their children... I do not thing that is on the rise. It used to be that children were treated as property, to do with as you wish. In the bible, deuteronomy 22 mentions that when an unwed girl is raped, the rapist must PAY THE FATHER, and the girl must be married by the rapist and never be divorced. In other words, the rapist ruined the fathers property, and now he has to buy it.

(Also, I would be remiss not to mention finding myself in error. The claim of a girl being stoned to death for not shouting loud enough while being raped was wrong. It happened to be in this chapter, and while I can see where the mistake comes from, it appears to be a case of "And this is how you will differentiate willing adulteresses from rape victims".)

Likewise, fifty years ago, it was considered perfectly reasonable to physically punish children. Nowadays, doing anything worse than spanking a child is grounds for child protective services to pay you a visit. And spanking is looked down on too. There will always be parents who are bastards to their children, but it seems plain to me that societies have gone from treating children as property to treating children as autonomous individuals who have been placed in an adults care, and that the right to care for that child may be revoked if the parent is shown to not act in the interest of the child.

And lastly, the issue of integrity. Who we are in the dark. There is no better way to be sure of your own morality when you do good at your own inconvienence, that you know will never be brought to light. Of course, by definition, we can never really know what a person is like when they have no ramifications of their actions. However, I'd like to put it out there that there the complication brought into this by Jesus.

It's twofold. First off, a believer in an omnipotent god can never believe they aren't being watched. In that sense, the theist can never believe they truly are acting morally in the dark. Second, many stripes of christians believe their actions are almost always without consequence. For the "Jesus forgives all sins" brand of christian, every nasty thing you do will have no ultimate consequence (And no short term either, provided you can avoid the cops), because as long as you seek forgiveness, you will still get to go to heaven in the end.

Ultimately, I can't really give you counter examples. I can tell you that I've done good things that have only caused me problems, when I knew I'd recieve no recognition, but if I had proof, then that would defeat the point, wouldn't it? But just as I can't prove the goodness of humanity in the dark, you can't show that we're traitorous bastards either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2011, 07:32 PM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2011 09:50 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(09-10-2011 07:37 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  LOL...alas, I am an admitted windbag.

S.T. Ranger, I got no idea whether or not any of the points you make are worthy of consideration or not because I have not read any of your points. I have no idea whether you are even arguing for theism or atheism. Your posts are a deluge which is far too verbose for me to even consider wading into. I'm not gonna get sucked into some sorta quagmire or quicksand.

If you got something worthwhile to say, seems to me it shouldn't take so many words.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2011, 07:30 AM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(09-10-2011 07:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(09-10-2011 07:37 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  LOL...alas, I am an admitted windbag.

S.T. Ranger, I got no idea whether or not any of the points you make are worthy of consideration or not because I have not read any of your points. I have no idea whether you are even arguing for theism or atheism. Your posts are a deluge which is far too verbose for me to even consider wading into. I'm not gonna get sucked into some sorta quagmire or quicksand.

If you got something worthwhile to say, seems to me it shouldn't take so many words.

Hello GM, first, thanks for the response. I have only read a few of your posts, and since I have been here, I try to limit my participation to response, that I am not charged with "forcing the bible (or religion) down anyone's throat." I have engaged in a few topics without request, but have for the most part just fielded the responses made to general statements, and taken it from there.

Sorry to hear that your opinion of conversations that you have not read are considered a "quagmire" or "quicksand." Perhaps a little time looking at the arguments might change your mind. I would be glad for you to examine the premise of this thread and give your opinion.

Again, thanks for your input,

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2011, 09:09 AM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(09-10-2011 06:33 PM)Sines Wrote:  Eh, not too bad. At least there were fewer comments on individual sentences. Anyway, there's not too much I can add to what you said that I haven't already said. Fortunately for me, it doesn't take much to get me writing for a while Big Grin

Now, I'll admit, I was never as bad as you describe yourself. At my worst, I had a tendency to get violent, and feel my actions were justified. While I will not say that they were, looking back I'll still say that I was provoked, and that I did try to resist. While those actions were wrong, I wasn't lashing out at every minor problem.

Still, I'm reminded of a comic book character. A superhero with incredible telepathic abilities. Unfortunately for her, so was her brother, and he wanted to help her become better. By forcing her to rip out all of her sensory organs, and rely on her mind alone. He only got as far as her eyes and tongue before he was stopped. At this point, she describes herself as having the potential to have been just as big of a monster as her brother. But she didn't want that. She didn't want revenge on her brother (Well, not too much), more importantly, she didn't want to be her brother. So, despite her somewhat sociopathic tendancies, she rewrote her mind, to become the caring, loving person she is.

When her and the main character (Empowered) are stuck on a burning space station, with only enough power to teleport one of them to safety, the telepath forces herself into Empowered's mind, and puppets her to the emergency teleporter, against Empowered's vigorous protest. She tells her that if only one of them can survive, it should be the genuinely nice person, not the person who had to cheat at it.

The way I see it, though, is that the telepath never had to make herself good. While her hatred of her brother might motivate her in some way, there's no reason she couldn't have taken the time to hunt him down, trap him, and slowly and tortuously murder him, all the while mocking him for making her a better telepath. But instead, she decided to become everything he wasn't. Why would she make herself into such a kind person, the kind of person who sacrifice themselves against the protests of the person they intended to save, if there wasn't good in her already? Maybe not much, but there was some there.

That's why I can't believe anyone who eventually becomes a decent person didn't have some good in them to start. Maybe their empathy had been stifled under their greed. Maybe they never really thought out what their actions did to those around them. But why would a person who is ultimately selfish, with no concern for others and only for themselves, wish to change themselves into someone who does? There is literally nothing to gain for the truly evil.

Maybe you couldn't have done it alone, but you couldn't have done it at all if there wasn't at least some part of you that wanted to.

Now then, you disagree with me that most people are naturally nice. Aren't we getting the whole nihilistic atheist and optimistic christian thing backwards?

At any rate, I'll agree with you that people will, when at their worst, care for themselves primarily. But that doesn't mean we're ultimately a bunch of selfish bastards. Once a persons basic needs are met, it does take much before kindness comes out. I may fight another person for a loaf of bread if I'm starving, but if I have a sustainable food supply, I'd be more likely to share some of it with a fellow zombie holocaust survivor than I would be to eat up and enjoy more food.

We're naturally compassionate creatures, hell, when the Emperor is begging for his life in Revenge of the Sith, I actually felt bad for him. Even though I knew he was a genocidal monster who was just faking. Even though, more importantly, I knew he was just some guy putting on an act (An act of a guy putting on an act... so meta). People cry at movies because they feel for people whom they know aren't even real.

Maybe I can't understand what it was like to be the bastard you used to be. But maybe you don't know what it's like to just naturally be a decent person. Perhaps you're view of humanity is too colored by your own hard-won morality, to not realize that it comes more naturally to most people.

Sure, people can do evil, but it is easier, a thousand times easier, to get people to do evil while they think they do good. This is one of my major problems with religion (And based on what you've said, I think you agree). But they are ultimately doing what they think is good. They are not fundamentally evil people, the terrible things they do does not come from a desire to inflict pain and suffering, but from their ignorance of the facts. If people were naturally evil, you wouldn't need religion or ideaologies to convince people to do wrong. No, the easiest way to convince people to do evil, is to convince them that they are doing good.

As for parents hurting their children... I do not thing that is on the rise. It used to be that children were treated as property, to do with as you wish. In the bible, deuteronomy 22 mentions that when an unwed girl is raped, the rapist must PAY THE FATHER, and the girl must be married by the rapist and never be divorced. In other words, the rapist ruined the fathers property, and now he has to buy it.

(Also, I would be remiss not to mention finding myself in error. The claim of a girl being stoned to death for not shouting loud enough while being raped was wrong. It happened to be in this chapter, and while I can see where the mistake comes from, it appears to be a case of "And this is how you will differentiate willing adulteresses from rape victims".)

Likewise, fifty years ago, it was considered perfectly reasonable to physically punish children. Nowadays, doing anything worse than spanking a child is grounds for child protective services to pay you a visit. And spanking is looked down on too. There will always be parents who are bastards to their children, but it seems plain to me that societies have gone from treating children as property to treating children as autonomous individuals who have been placed in an adults care, and that the right to care for that child may be revoked if the parent is shown to not act in the interest of the child.

And lastly, the issue of integrity. Who we are in the dark. There is no better way to be sure of your own morality when you do good at your own inconvienence, that you know will never be brought to light. Of course, by definition, we can never really know what a person is like when they have no ramifications of their actions. However, I'd like to put it out there that there the complication brought into this by Jesus.

It's twofold. First off, a believer in an omnipotent god can never believe they aren't being watched. In that sense, the theist can never believe they truly are acting morally in the dark. Second, many stripes of christians believe their actions are almost always without consequence. For the "Jesus forgives all sins" brand of christian, every nasty thing you do will have no ultimate consequence (And no short term either, provided you can avoid the cops), because as long as you seek forgiveness, you will still get to go to heaven in the end.

Ultimately, I can't really give you counter examples. I can tell you that I've done good things that have only caused me problems, when I knew I'd recieve no recognition, but if I had proof, then that would defeat the point, wouldn't it? But just as I can't prove the goodness of humanity in the dark, you can't show that we're traitorous bastards either.


Hello Sines, thanks for the response. I encourage you to write, as sometimes it can force us to examine our statements in a different manner, and I have found it to be helpful.

I will try to respond in the manner you are familiar with, hope that helps.

In regards to the story, a nice one. I am a fan of "superhero" movies, and there are some great story lines involved at times. I am also a fan of science fiction as well as fantasy, they have always been of great interest to me. That is about all I have to say about this portion of your post, and will move on.



"Now then, you disagree with me that most people are naturally nice. Aren't we getting the whole nihilistic atheist and optimistic christian thing backwards?"

That is the point I have been trying to make: what "optimistic christian thing?" While I am not a Calvinist by definition, the doctrine of the depravity of man is one that I do believe speaks of the human condition. I am not saying that there is "no good" in man in his natural state, because I believe there is. Scripture speaks of those who were called "righteous," but, this description is in comparison between man...and man, not man's righteousness compared to the righteousness of God. I will not bore you with details, but consider: one person believes that another is good, based upon what they consider good. One person may call another good, because he can go out and hunt successfully, and provide food for his family (and there are cultures even today where this might apply), while another might consider this person "evil" because he is killing animals. Their views are separated by culture and need. This is an example of human comparison.

But scripturally, whether the one is good and the other evil is completely aside from the righteousness, or goodness, that scripture requires for relationship with God in the "eternal sense." I know that by discussing such matters you may be inclined to think me silly, after all, believing in such things. So I will end my comments about our getting our roles reversed there, and move on.


"At any rate, I'll agree with you that people will, when at their worst, care for themselves primarily. But that doesn't mean we're ultimately a bunch of selfish bastards. Once a persons basic needs are met, it does take much before kindness comes out. I may fight another person for a loaf of bread if I'm starving, but if I have a sustainable food supply, I'd be more likely to share some of it with a fellow zombie holocaust survivor than I would be to eat up and enjoy more food."

LOL...you remind me of my nephew, who has a fascination with zombies. Okay, to give another thought, what if a city were besieged, and food was scarce, almost non-existant? How would most people behave in such a situation?

Just a quick note on Palpatine: you felt sorry for him...lol? I was highly disappointed with Anakin's conversion, though they did try to paint the picture of a gradual progression towards evil. It was like, "Okay, I'll join you."

A little anticlimactic if you ask me.


"Maybe I can't understand what it was like to be the bastard you used to be. But maybe you don't know what it's like to just naturally be a decent person. Perhaps you're view of humanity is too colored by your own hard-won morality, to not realize that it comes more naturally to most people.

Sure, people can do evil, but it is easier, a thousand times easier, to get people to do evil while they think they do good. This is one of my major problems with religion (And based on what you've said, I think you agree). But they are ultimately doing what they think is good. They are not fundamentally evil people, the terrible things they do does not come from a desire to inflict pain and suffering, but from their ignorance of the facts. If people were naturally evil, you wouldn't need religion or ideaologies to convince people to do wrong. No, the easiest way to convince people to do evil, is to convince them that they are doing good.


Believe it or not, I still have the capacity for behaving as I use to in a limited manner (and I may be overstating this), as I am still apt to respond at times with anger (which has always been a problem for me), and surprise myself sometimes with the intensity of it. Doesn't happen much anymore, but it is still an issue I work on.

I will not belabor this point, as it isn't something I think I am capable of conveying. It is better seen on the news, really. I will just reiterate that who and what a person is is really not known until they are faced with conditions which expose the quality of their character. Are there good people? Sure. And sometimes we see their goodness when conditions are at their worst.

I do agree that religion historically has seen some atrocities committed, and that some of those who committed them were convinced they were doing the right thing. I often wonder at the Nazi soldier. We look back and wonder how they could have done what they did, and are convinced we would have done otherwise. A noble thought, but, even as with religion, because people do not for themselves seek understanding, the probability of being deceived is very real.

As I said, we like to compare ourselves with the "hero," and think we would do as they did, never once considering the possibility that we would replicate the actions of the bad guy.


"As for parents hurting their children... I do not thing that is on the rise. It used to be that children were treated as property, to do with as you wish. In the bible, deuteronomy 22 mentions that when an unwed girl is raped, the rapist must PAY THE FATHER, and the girl must be married by the rapist and never be divorced. In other words, the rapist ruined the fathers property, and now he has to buy it.

(Also, I would be remiss not to mention finding myself in error. The claim of a girl being stoned to death for not shouting loud enough while being raped was wrong. It happened to be in this chapter, and while I can see where the mistake comes from, it appears to be a case of "And this is how you will differentiate willing adulteresses from rape victims".)

Likewise, fifty years ago, it was considered perfectly reasonable to physically punish children. Nowadays, doing anything worse than spanking a child is grounds for child protective services to pay you a visit. And spanking is looked down on too. There will always be parents who are bastards to their children, but it seems plain to me that societies have gone from treating children as property to treating children as autonomous individuals who have been placed in an adults care, and that the right to care for that child may be revoked if the parent is shown to not act in the interest of the child."

Paragrapg 1 and 2: As population grows, the incidents of child abuse will certainly grow with them. I know that some view discipline as child abuse, but there is a big difference. Discipline is a result of bad behavior, meant to discourage from repeating the actions or behavior, as well as teaching a child to consider their actions and the consequences...before they do them. It has a value of instilling that they are not the ones that can decide for themselves what right and wrong is, but that there is an established right and wrong already.

You can't tell me that you feel that the U.S. is a much better place today, and that children are capable of deciding for themselves what is right and wrong?

Child abuse, on the other hand, is far different than discipline. This imposes physical hurt upon a child, not because of wrongdoing (because the fact is the child will never do enough "right" to avoid the physical abuse), but for the satisfaction of the one abusing the child, many of which suffered the same treatment as children. The root is usually traced back to the parents. Okay, Iwill stop there, this could be a long conversation. I will just add this: as a child, I would have viewed the spankings I received as child abuse. As an adult, I understand that the discipline was actually for my own good. The knowledge that if I acted a certain way would result in discipline deterred me from behaving in an untoward manner too much (I still did though at times...that is just part of growing up).

Concerning Deuteronomy 22, understand that this is in a time when rape was not an everyday occurence. Israel (then) compared to America today is quite different, so to compare the two is a mistake. We would not even compare statistics and events to America two hundred years ago. While comparisons may be found, we live in a different culture.

But as to your statement, I am assuming you mean 22:28-29. Please clarify, as I cannot actually respond if I do not know exactly which verses you speak of. If it is 28-29, this is a hard thing to understand. At the risk of sounding like I am making excuses, I would say that the question of whether it is rape or not, based upon the preceding instruction concerning "betrothed virgins" being raped, might be a difficult issue to prove. It would make sense that if a virgin was raped in the city, there would likely be people to hear her cry out, and the absence of crying out could be indicative of her agreement to the relations, as opposed to the one in the country, where even if a cry had been made, it is likely it would not have been heard, at least, the benefit of the doubt should be given.

Now think about this: v. 28 states "and if they be found..." What might be missing from this? The implication of them "being found" seems to suggest discovery apart from the cries of the one being raped, as the penalty for these relations are found to be clear:

Deuteronomy 22

21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

22If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

Because the forum reacts slow, I use wordpad to do the responses, and cannot emphasize or italicize (without added effort of copying and pasting), but notice that in the circumstances where relations are had, death is the penalty for both the man and the woman. The exceptions are for a "virgin" found not to be a virgin, exposing she has played the harlot (and this, according to what I have read, was proven by the "wedding sheets" which would have evidence of blood, and which I have read would have been kept by the bride as evidence of her virginity...and I must add, I have read about this, and have no way or intention to actually state this as fact), and for the virgin raped in the "field.." Then, it is the man that dies, and not the woman.

So when we get to vv. 28-29, there is apparently different circumstances that warrant neither of the two dying, and I think the clue is in them being "found." There is no factor of "crying out," and I think that even in a culture where sexual relations were taken so seriously, there was still a human factor to be found, such as an understanding that this is one of the basic aspects of humanity.

I will also add that when Christ was asked about divorce, He said that "for the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed a bill of divorce." According to the history books and commentaries I have read, the religious rulers of that day as well as the average man, would have a bill of divorcement ready, in their pockets. Not all, but some.

All in all, I would ask, since the other situations are covered, what is it about this circumstance that would warrant a different penalty. And lastly, I would add, if those who engaged in relations knew that they may have to actually marry the person, would they not be more selective in their decisions?


Paragraph 3:


"Likewise, fifty years ago, it was considered perfectly reasonable to physically punish children. Nowadays, doing anything worse than spanking a child is grounds for child protective services to pay you a visit. And spanking is looked down on too. There will always be parents who are bastards to their children, but it seems plain to me that societies have gone from treating children as property to treating children as autonomous individuals who have been placed in an adults care, and that the right to care for that child may be revoked if the parent is shown to not act in the interest of the child."

I think you have a very astute grasp of the situation. It is encouraging to see that I am not the only one that sees it this way.


"And lastly, the issue of integrity. Who we are in the dark. There is no better way to be sure of your own morality when you do good at your own inconvienence, that you know will never be brought to light. Of course, by definition, we can never really know what a person is like when they have no ramifications of their actions. However, I'd like to put it out there that there the complication brought into this by Jesus.

It's twofold. First off, a believer in an omnipotent god can never believe they aren't being watched. In that sense, the theist can never believe they truly are acting morally in the dark. Second, many stripes of christians believe their actions are almost always without consequence. For the "Jesus forgives all sins" brand of christian, every nasty thing you do will have no ultimate consequence (And no short term either, provided you can avoid the cops), because as long as you seek forgiveness, you will still get to go to heaven in the end."

I have to say that the first point is a little odd. Meaning, "the theist can never believe they truly are acting morally in the dark.

This is one of the significant differences between religion and relationship: we do believe we are under the watchful eye of God, however, it is before Him we live...not the world. If a man lives righteously, it will be for two reasons, basically: in obedience to God, or, to impress his fellow man. Anyone can "put his best foot forward," because most want other people to like them, right? The religionist can replicate love, but it is the internal veracity that will ultimately guide the efforts of that man.

As for, "many stripes of christians believe their actions are almost always without consequence," I agree with that in part, however, it again goes back to obedience. Nowhere does scripture teach that believers have license to sin, meaning individual acts as opposed to the sin nature, is basically defined as disobedience to the will of God.

For the "Jesus forgives all sins," this is true, and this is in fact the reason He came, to take upon Himself the penalty that will be exacted upon those who reject God and live in rebellion to Him. Now you don't have to take that as fact, I know you do not, but...that is what scripture teaches.

What it does not teach is that Jesus forgives sin in the life of the believer, at least, not in the blanket statement manner you refer to here. Scripture teaches consequences for sin in the life of the child of God, to the point of physical death (1 Corinthians 11, for example). Believers are not given immunity from obedience or the responsibility to live holy before God. This attitude is a result, again, of lack of knowledge concerning bible doctrine and a watered down gospel that teaches that salvation is simply a matter of believing facts on an intellectual level. Faith is evidenced by conformity to biblical doctrine, and a lifestyle of disobedience does not conform to what scripture reveals about the new birth and conversion.

There is an issue of progressive sanctification, which has to do, basically, with believers growing up. Maturity in the temporal sense is not instantaneous, but is a process just like physical growth.

Okay, really have to get going. I think this (to me) will be harder to read than breaking up the posts, but, thought it worth it to give it a shot.

Have a good one,

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2011, 09:31 AM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Hopefully this hasn't been posted it. It is related to the topic:



Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2011, 04:40 PM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Really, I don't have much to add at this point. Just a few niggles here and there, but that's just wasting time Big Grin Except for one thing. Now, maybe I missed it, but please explain to me...

Do you really think the stoning of adulterers is objectively moral? I apologized for misreading the text on being stoned for not shouting loud enough. However, all it reads now is, "If she didn't cry out, she was a willing adulteress..." (Okay so far...) "...and must be stoned to death."

So, we're no longer killing a person for being raped, we're just killing a person (well, two) for adultery. Now, adultery is wrong, but killing them? Really? That's barbarism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2011, 05:39 PM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(10-10-2011 04:40 PM)Sines Wrote:  Really, I don't have much to add at this point. Just a few niggles here and there, but that's just wasting time Big Grin Except for one thing. Now, maybe I missed it, but please explain to me...

Do you really think the stoning of adulterers is objectively moral? I apologized for misreading the text on being stoned for not shouting loud enough. However, all it reads now is, "If she didn't cry out, she was a willing adulteress..." (Okay so far...) "...and must be stoned to death."

So, we're no longer killing a person for being raped, we're just killing a person (well, two) for adultery. Now, adultery is wrong, but killing them? Really? That's barbarism.

I know it seems barbaric, and to a certain extent I agree, it is. However, the importance of Israel being a people apart from the world (in this case, those of the land that God would give them) was a matter of utmost importance. While the directive to kill those that broke the law sounds severe, there are two things I consider when trying to understand the severity. First, there were in all probablity very few times this would have to have been carried out, as the penalty itself would have surely been a deterrant for most actually engaging in the behavior mentioned.

And secondly, even when it was broken, there was of course a human element to contend with, meaning, it is doubtful that the penalty was always exacted. Of course this latter is speculation, because when we see an equivalent in our society, we usually carry out the sentence, though again, there is a human element, such as plea bargaining, sentences being turned over, et cetera.

Personally, when it comes to rape, stoning is, in my opinion, a mercy that I would probably not give, especially if it involved someone I loved, say, a family member. In some countries, they cut off the offending part, and in the case of this crime, I think this penalty would all but wipe out this atrocity.

Now doesn't that sound barbaric? But I am being honest about that. Take drunk driving. I think there should be no leeway whatsoever. Get caught once...no license for life, plus, a substantial prison term.

To get back to your question, though, do I think death for adultery is too high a penalty? That is a little difficult for me to answer, as I have not been in the shoes of one who's spouse cheated on them (though I had a girlfriend once...). Some today do not see adultery as a big deal, but it is, really.

Adultery is analogous in scripture of spiritual harlotry, as is used euphemistically. The correlation between the two would have to be held in the context of the passage, of course, but imagine for a minute there is a God, how He would feel if He was betrayed. Now what would be easier to do is talk to someone who's spouse cheated on them, and it will vary, of course, but this is a betrayal that is unlike any other concerning relationships. Temporal, that is.

Have to get going, but I had a little time to spend in Deut. 22 this morning, and just wanted to offer this from the law, in case you might want to examine it in light of the passage we were discussing:

Exodus 22:16-17
King James Version (KJV)


16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.


One of the aspects that differs in the previous passage is the fact that the woman is not...betrothed. I will be looking at this, as it is interesting, and I do not expect to be able to give an answer that might satisfy the fact that we would view the penalty as severe, we will. However, it is necessary to understand that Israel was created to be a witness of God, and their behavior was of utmost importance.

Okay, truly appreciate the short post, I am about to be shot because they are waiting for me to eat dinner.

Have a good one.

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2011, 07:47 PM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2011 09:23 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(10-10-2011 07:30 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(09-10-2011 07:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(09-10-2011 07:37 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  LOL...alas, I am an admitted windbag.

S.T. Ranger, I got no idea whether or not any of the points you make are worthy of consideration or not because I have not read any of your points. I have no idea whether you are even arguing for theism or atheism. Your posts are a deluge which is far too verbose for me to even consider wading into. I'm not gonna get sucked into some sorta quagmire or quicksand.

If you got something worthwhile to say, seems to me it shouldn't take so many words.

Hello GM, first, thanks for the response.
...
Sorry to hear that your opinion of conversations that you have not read are considered a "quagmire" or "quicksand."
...

Well that's some sorta bizarre misinterpretation of my opinion. ... but okay.

I mean I scroll through your posts and think, fuck that's gonna take me a while to read and then I think fuck that's gonna take me even longer to analyze and then I think fuck why should I even bother. Fucker needs to show me something more succinct and interesting before I even consider diverting my time and effort.

(10-10-2011 07:30 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Again, thanks for your input,

S.T.

Sure, no problem. ... Glad to be of help. ... I mean that's like all we got.

"Peace, Love and Empathy" - Matt ... I concur.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2011, 09:22 PM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(10-10-2011 05:39 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  I know it seems barbaric, and to a certain extent I agree, it is. However, the importance of Israel being a people apart from the world (in this case, those of the land that God would give them) was a matter of utmost importance. While the directive to kill those that broke the law sounds severe, there are two things I consider when trying to understand the severity. First, there were in all probablity very few times this would have to have been carried out, as the penalty itself would have surely been a deterrant for most actually engaging in the behavior mentioned.

And secondly, even when it was broken, there was of course a human element to contend with, meaning, it is doubtful that the penalty was always exacted. Of course this latter is speculation, because when we see an equivalent in our society, we usually carry out the sentence, though again, there is a human element, such as plea bargaining, sentences being turned over, et cetera.

So, if I raped, tortured and murdered a small child only a few times, I wouldn't be THAT much of a monster? Cause that's what you're saying. It's not so bad because it wasn't done too often. And yet, in this same post, you say that there should be zero tolerance for drunk driving. So... a society can murder a few people for crimes not worthy of death, but a guy can't make one bad decision without ruining his whole life?

Second, you also try to justify it because people didn't do it that often. Which means they weren't following gods law. And besides, that just means the people were behaving good. God, who made the law, is still enacting disproportionate punishments.

Quote:Personally, when it comes to rape, stoning is, in my opinion, a mercy that I would probably not give, especially if it involved someone I loved, say, a family member. In some countries, they cut off the offending part, and in the case of this crime, I think this penalty would all but wipe out this atrocity.

Stoning is a mercy? Stranger, here's something you might need to read.

dictionary.com Wrote:mer·cy [mur-see]
noun, plural -cies for 4, 5.
1.
compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power; compassion, pity, or benevolence: Have mercy on the poor sinner. Nope, no stoning...
2.
the disposition to be compassionate or forbearing: an adversary wholly without mercy. Wholly without mercy? That sounds like an angry stoning mob!
3.
the discretionary power of a judge to pardon someone or to mitigate punishment, especially to send to prison rather than invoke the death penalty. Stoning is the death penalty. Definitely not this one
4.
an act of kindness, compassion, or favor: She has performed countless small mercies for her friends and neighbors. I'd rather have someone do my laundry than throw rocks at my head.
5.
something that gives evidence of divine favor; blessing: It was just a mercy we had our seat belts on when it happened.God is definitely not showing his favor here, what with all the killing.

Quote:To get back to your question, though, do I think death for adultery is too high a penalty? That is a little difficult for me to answer, as I have not been in the shoes of one who's spouse cheated on them (though I had a girlfriend once...). Some today do not see adultery as a big deal, but it is, really.

Agreed, adultery is a big deal. Anyone who doesn't think it is is an utter asshole. But I would NEVER advocate death. Maybe I was wrong about you. That you can't even say, "No, I would not want her dead," means that maybe you are still an evil bastard, and that you're only good because you fear punishment from god? C'mon. I don't like to think that about people. But if you can't say, "I would not want my wife dead for cheating on me," then that's pretty damning evidence of being a bad person.

Quote:Adultery is analogous in scripture of spiritual harlotry, as is used euphemistically. The correlation between the two would have to be held in the context of the passage, of course, but imagine for a minute there is a God, how He would feel if He was betrayed. Now what would be easier to do is talk to someone who's spouse cheated on them, and it will vary, of course, but this is a betrayal that is unlike any other concerning relationships. Temporal, that is.

What WOULD god feel if he was betrayed? Well, not being omniscient, I can't be certain, nor even begin to comprehend. However, there is one thing I know for certain. You can't harm an absolutely perfect entity. God cannot be hurt by his creation acting against his will. Because he cannot be hurt period. So, god isn't harmed here. I fail to see how he enters into this moral consideration.

Granted, I fail to see how a being that cannot be harmed and is always in an ideal state of mind can EVER fit into any moral consideration. I can't make him suffer, because that would require a finite being to subtract from an infinite, all powerful deity, nor can I make him happier, because he's already perfect.

Seriously though. I'll put up with apologetic gymnastics, but if you can't say, "I wouldn't want my wife dead if she cheated on me," then you are a monster. I don't mean just thinking that in the short term. That's fine. But you are not talking about spur of the moment rage. You're talking about the death penalty. A plotted and planned execution. And you can't say you wouldn't support that. If you want me to treat you with respect, you will recognize what you said, and say that, yes, executing adulterers is wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: