What is "FAITH"

[Consilius]

If the Bible was immoral, you would be wrong in calling it so since you believe there is no objective standard for morality.

I may be wrong in their world view, but in mine I'm right. But it's not about right or wrong, is it? Rather, it's about justification for my views. Calling the Bible immoral is completely justified on my part if my morality dictates it to be. Anyone associating with the immoral aspects of the Bible is also immoral to me.

You'd be discriminating against the ancient Jews because they believed what they did is moral, and since BELIEVING something is moral is all it takes for a moral to exist, they apparently placed themselves within their own moral standards.

Okay...so I can't call it a bad book now because they didn't think it was then? That simply doesn't follow, and the argument holds absolutely no water. Hitler thought killing the Jews was a good idea, and, at the time, so did many of his followers. They regretted it dearly afterwards.

Luckily, this is not true. This argument shouldn't be used to defend the Bible. The Torah says not to kill and steal, just like the laws do today.

Yeah, and it contradicts itself earlier and later. The Bible is unreliable, just like those courtroom witness testimonies that Judge Consilius loves so much.

You're only partially right that the argument shouldn't be used to defend the Bible. Let's take that a step further and say what we're all thinking: nothing should be used to defend the Bible.

Jesus proved he was God and the Messiah through his life. His actions were more powerful than his words. He showed the world that he was God and had them tell others about it. Christ made himself God to others. Others did not make Christ God.

He showed a few people in Palestine, or so they say. That is not showing the world anything. He didn't prove anything if he never existed in the first place, and the only evidence of his life is through religious texts, not history books.

Here's a little nugget for ya. How come when the Book of Acts opens up no one seems to remember this Christ fellow, or his crucifiction, or anything that he did? In fact, it's the Apostles going out and preaching to people that have never heard of him before. All this proves is that they talked about him, not that he existed.

Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, says he translated an ancient text written on Gold Plates into what is known as the Book of Mormon. It contains the history and writings of Jews from 600 B.C. that settled the Americas and became the ancestors of the Native Americans.

It's documented in a book...but is it true? The Bible falls under the exact same scrutiny. Proof that the Bible exists and says stuff is not proof that it's true.

Love can exist as a concept, but it is also a force because it has physical effects on the world.

Are you saying that because love can also be demonstrated as a force, that it necessarily is attributed to god? Love as a force can be independant of god, just as cheese can be independant of a sandwich.

What you are suggesting is that there is no objective moral standard, but the entire world is subject to your views, which can be different from anyone else's. We are left with is a society where people are subject to their own standards alone. If lying is OK to me, there is no reason for me to believe that is wrong, and you are wrong to criticize me, because I am being judged according to your moral standards while and my moral standards are equally as acceptable as yours. Too bad the laws don't agree with us. If I lie to the government, I am judged by their moral standard simply because they are more powerful. My personal moral standards are not acknowledged in a court of law because the world doesn't have to respect anyone's personal moral code, rather every human being is subject to morals that exist outside of him or her.
Hitler was condemned by pretty much everyone else outside the Nazi party because he was wrong. Antisemitism was never right and never will be. He deviated from an ultimate moral standard and was opposed by a world mostly in touch with this standard.
Christ died a criminal. His own disciples left him. Until Pentecost, he was simply a good story. Famous singers stop performing and we forget about them and move on, in the same way Christ was uninteresting to a people that didn't hear him speak or perform miracles anymore. Nobody had any motive to take serious action in his name. Not to mention that most of those who were in Jerusalem at the time of Pentecost were foreigners from outside Palestine, hence the speaking in tongues.

---

What is immoral is that a wrongdoer never gets punishment by any means.

Life is unfair. Justice is not perfect. Sometimes bad people get away without punishment. Sometimes good people are punished for acts they did not commit. It comforts theists to believe that all bad people will suffer after death if they escape punishment during life, but the fact of the matter is that the universe simply does not care about humanity. There is no retribution after death, and for some illogical reason that fact frightens theists more than the sociopathic glee they experience thinking souls suffer at the hands of a tyrant deity.

Mainstream Christianity has never placed any specific person in hell. We do not imagine people in hell to satisfy ourselves. The decision of what happens to souls when they die is up to God, and we don't claim to have any knowledge of what that decision will be. Who are we to claim to know the morals and motives of even the likes of Adolf Hitler? All humanity has the authority to say is that what he physically brought to the world was bad. What were your motives of posting that about Christians?

---

It hasn't been proven to have occurred in a human before. Don't you think that a single incident of parthenogenesis in 2000 years is just a little bit TOO rare?

---

It hasn't been proven to have occured in humans, but we have shown that the theory works and that it is possible.
As for it not happening in the last 2000 years, where did that come from? Its only been in the past century that we've known about its existence. We've only had 100 years at best to look for it. Even then, the probability of it being documented in humans is incredibly small. It could have happened in isolated places like countries in Africa or parts of Russia and we would never have known about it. Considering that we are discovering new things about the human body every day, does it seem so much of a stretch to think that parthenogenesis could occur in humans?

Also there are plenty of incredibly rare diseases and mutations out there, you just have to search on google and find them. There are probably plenty more unknown diseases and conditions out there waiting to be discovered and documented.

Well, that's all fine and well. When "virgin births" was originally posted by BadWriterSparty, it was to show how impossible the event was. Now we know that parthenogenesis CAN occur, so this means that it has become more likely that there WAS a virgin birth as described in the Bible, contradictory to what BWS had tried to say before. I think we're done here.

---

Punishment for disobedience is simply invoking discipline, like a schoolteacher. Those who don't take correction do not want to be part of the system, and are expelled from it. The naughty kid is expelled from school, and loses everything that came from the schoolteacher that he refused to obey. You respect someone who you owe money, or else his money will be taken back. If you owe God your life and you refuse to respect him, then you refuse to be with him. Your life is taken from you and you a granted an eternity without him, that being hell.

And you think a god that does that, gives the death penalty for disrespecting him and creates a place of eternal torment, is love?

I did not say God's existence was dependent on us.

Good, because I never said you did.

I said that God fulfilled his personal objective by making us to love.

No, you didn't. You said god gave his existence purpose by creating us.

But let's go with this anyway. Why would a god have a personal objective and the desire to fulfill it?

Again we get the traditional notion of hell. Hell is only punishment to those that avoid it, because hell is a place where God's presence cannot be felt. Those who willingly reject God spend eternity without him. Flames and worms are extraneous and there is no reason to believe they are there.
God has always had objectives. His prime objective is to draw people closer to him. We exist so we can be drawn closer to him. God is a force. A force needs a body to act upon. This not an urgent need, as this force can exist independent of any body, being eternal and self-sufficient. God selflessly made us so he could provide for us. He desires not to only sustain himself but to sustain others. Because God is the force of love.