One of the many points of disagreement for early islamics when coming up with their own mythology. They cribbed the christian notes on the jewish god and thought "this god is weaksauce, it needs more all-power and less human-penis".

(June 12, 2023 at 2:08 pm)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 12, 2023 at 1:29 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I truly want to be in heaven, if there is one, and the alternative is hell, if there is one.

Well the bad news is none of us will live in heaven. We are to actually live on Earth after Judgment with Jesus as our King.. Do you believe in earth? If so you are 1/2 way there.

Quote:The problem is, I don't think they're real. Not the Buddhist or Muslim versions either. The NT assumes hell, but it never lays out evidence or reasoning to support its existence.

Kinda don't need any of that when the Authority on it says it is so.
You are trying to apply a scientific standard on a promise that was introduced before science. meaning why would it meet scientific standards of proof before science was invented?

Quote:It didn't have to, it was a given that people in the region believed in the hell that Jesus described, or at least Hades as the Romans believed. I don't want to suffer forever, but I can't think of a good reason to believe anyone will. I can see why someone raised to believe it would; but I don't see why someone who never heard of it would find it plausible.

if you want a reason ask god to give you one. ask him to show you the gates of hell. more than one person alive has had a vision of what is to come. Even if this does not meet the scientific standards you think you need, it will be real enough for you.

Sounds like you're a JW. Is that correct? I believe King's Cross Station in London is real, I don't think that gets me halfway to believing in the Wizarding World of Harry Potter.

I'm not convinced that Jesus was an authority on hell. I'm not even convinced he was a real person, though I lean about 51% in that direction. You have to believe the Bible is true before any of the stories can be convincing; and I have found the Bible to be very unconvincing in the first place. I reject the idea that I should accept some promise without evidence just because it was made before fact checking was a thing.

I believe that if I asked and prayed hard enough for a vision of a Buddhist hell, I might get a vision of it. If I went on a vision quest, I might have a vision of a talking animal. Visions seem to be very culture specific for some reason. It's almost like they come from inside the petitioner's own brain and are shaped by what they already believe.

Here's what I believe: a person's belief in something should be proportional to the evidence for it. There were lots of things written before scientific standards of evidence were formulated, and that's a terrible reason to believe them. Hearsay is terrible evidence. Visions are terrible evidence (problem of contradictory revelations). It's okay that you don't have good arguments for your religious beliefs, no one else does either. I don't blame you for believing what you were raised to believe that's also what the people you love believe. That's very human. But I'll be very surprised if you have anything persuasive to anyone who doesn't already accept your premises.

(June 13, 2023 at 8:49 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(June 13, 2023 at 8:13 am)R-Farmer Wrote: fair enough.

Not to judge you or start a political debate. but would you follow this country's morality if it opened up sexual relationship for Minor Attracted Persons?

That's not a political argument, that's just you being a douche repeating some bullshit the reichwing nuts like to say.  I think the better question is why you wouldn't?  That's not something god has a problem with in magic book.  In fact, it specifically tells people to go off raiding for minor sex slaves.  It's not like there's anything wrong with that (or anything else) in gods unchanging ultimate moral relativism.

It seems you have veered off topic. The question I asked was based on your comment that you wanted/preferred flexible morality over god's ridged never changing righteousness.

My question is If society makes it legal for MAPs to have sex with children would you be ok with this? because like it or not know it or not this movement is gaining traction. I'm just asking do you have a line where you say no to the continuous evolution of morality?

Again no judgement or offense intended.

(June 13, 2023 at 8:49 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(June 13, 2023 at 8:13 am)R-Farmer Wrote: fair enough.

Not to judge you or start a political debate. but would you follow this country's morality if it opened up sexual relationship for Minor Attracted Persons?

That's not a political argument, that's just you being a douche repeating some bullshit the reichwing nuts like to say.  I think the better question is why you wouldn't?  That's not something god has a problem with in magic book.  In fact, it specifically tells people to go off raiding for minor sex slaves.  It's not like there's anything wrong with that (or anything else) in gods unchanging ultimate moral relativism.

It seems you have veered off topic. The question I asked was based on your comment that you wanted/preferred flexible morality over god's ridged never changing righteousness.

My question is If society makes it legal for MAPs to have sex with children would you be ok with this? because like it or not know it or not this movement is gaining traction. I'm just asking do you have a line where you say no to the continuous evolution of morality?

Again no judgement or offense intended. Nor am I looking to challenge your answer. Just wanted to see how far this line of thought goes.

(June 12, 2023 at 2:18 pm)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 12, 2023 at 1:31 pm)h4ym4n Wrote: So to be clear, jesus was invented 2000 years ago? 

When did god invent h ghost? Was it hand built by god or did god have sex with something?

Sure if jesus existed he was born but Jesus is the byproduct of a spirit impregnating a young virgin. Right?

what year were you invented? as the word ;invented' does not apply to what is being described.

I know this was directed at h4m4n, but: You believe it doesn't apply, but if Jesus is fictional then it does. I was born, Sherlock Holmes was invented. Not asking you to agree, just want to make sure you understand where h4m4n is coming from. The idea was literally unthinkable to me when I was a believer.

(June 13, 2023 at 7:44 am)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 12, 2023 at 4:44 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: Well, if Satan rules the world then god is very feeble and is not worth anyone's time.

And if that was always apart of the plan?

Then the plan stinks, along with the one who made it.

R-Farmer Wrote:And if you took say, eggs and baby animals instead of full grown adults? If eggs were taken that would represent all avian reptiles and amphibians which would take up a fraction of the space and eliminate the need to feed them.

Then you would not know which is a female egg from a male egg. Also, eggs need to be incubated. And who would feed them when they hatch? When birds fall out of their nest they are dead.

(June 13, 2023 at 8:11 am)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 12, 2023 at 5:15 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: That just proves that god (of the Bible) is an archaic idea created by primitive people who knew very little about the world and let alone the universe.

I disagree. just look at your default presupposition on who and what God is supposed to be.. This idea of perfection can also be found in super early church writings. Where do you think you got it from? What the Bible says is this idea of man's perfection is wrong. the idea of God having to be our perfect version of God is wrong. Rather because God is the master creator He becomes the standard bearer of what perfection is. So even if he retains a trait that 'we' see as being flawed, it is our judgement that is flawed, and what ever perceived attribute we have identified is in fact apart of God's perfection.

God does not have to yield to our standard of perfection inorder to be God.

Quote: People in the ancient past thought that all species of animals could fit on one boat because they knew only a handful of animal species. Similar with the universe - they didn't know about galaxies, and they thought that world was flat. Today we know that the universe is too big for anyone to create it and manipulate it and that we hold no special place in it.

And if you took say, eggs and baby animals instead of full grown adults? If eggs were taken that would represent all avian reptiles and amphibians which would take up a fraction of the space and eliminate the need to feed them. (that's 3/4s of every class of creature on the planet.) Then if you took baby mammals all you would need is a large source of milk and that would also take up a fraction of the space and reduce the needs for most of the food.

That said the story of the ark is not a logistical tale of how one man saved the world from an angry God, but how God used and helped one man save the world from a level of sin it had never seen before or have seen since.

If only the Bible had thought to mention Noah was gathering eggs and babies aboard the ark, you wouldn't have to make those details up to explain the logistics problems. Remember that Noah only built the ark, the animals arrived under their own power, from all over the world. I suppose the eggs rolled over land and sea to get there? You're twisting reason into a pretzel to justify an explanation for surviving a global flood that there's no evidence happened in the first place. It seems like you'd be in a better postition sticking with the metaphorical lessons of the tale, since you acknoweledge that aspect of it anyway.

(June 12, 2023 at 3:25 pm)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 12, 2023 at 2:38 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: My main point is that if you had really turned things over to god...there would have been no need for a second medical opinion.

That doesn't follow..

What does turning a situation over to god have to do with having doctor monitor and or advise on the situation?

Quote:So maybe thank the doctor that you decided to go to instead of saying you wished upon a star and things were taken care of.

where in my story did I say I was not grateful to everyone involved including my first doctor?

Quote:When you turn something over to god...that's it, isn't it?  

Is what it? Durning over something to God means to chose to worship and praise no matter the out come. that I would not pray or try to influence what I thought my immediate needs were. That I would allow God to decide my out come. 

Quote: Or did god or one his messengers send you a text with a phone number in it for Dr. I Have Other Ideas?

I had an insurance issue with the first dr. so I went to a place that would work with the insurance I had. Again kinda allowing God/fate to decide. The point is I was ok whatever the out come. that is what is meant by giving it to god. Not waiting for God to heal me. I though that point was made clear in the last post when I said I did not mean to suggest that cancer can only be healed or even that it was possible or that one is immune to cancer just because they believe in god.

God guided you by using your insurance company?

Silly thought on too many levels.

Apologetics are so boring.

(June 13, 2023 at 9:41 am)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 13, 2023 at 8:49 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That's not a political argument, that's just you being a douche repeating some bullshit the reichwing nuts like to say.  I think the better question is why you wouldn't?  That's not something god has a problem with in magic book.  In fact, it specifically tells people to go off raiding for minor sex slaves.  It's not like there's anything wrong with that (or anything else) in gods unchanging ultimate moral relativism.

It seems you have veered off topic. The question I asked was based on your comment that you wanted/preferred flexible morality over god's ridged never changing righteousness.

My question is If society makes it legal for MAPs to have sex with children would you be ok with this? because like it or not know it or not this movement is gaining traction. I'm just asking do you have a line where you say no to the continuous evolution of morality?

Again no judgement or offense intended. Nor am I looking to challenge your answer. Just wanted to see how far this line of thought goes.

Nudger has stated that his positon is one of objective morality. How did you arrive at the notion that he would bow to the winds of moral fashion. If I were him I would be offended at the insuation as well. What on earth makes you think this is his 'line of thought' in the first place? Are you so convinced that he's a moral relativist that you litertally can't hear him when he tells you he's not?

(June 13, 2023 at 8:52 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(June 13, 2023 at 8:23 am)R-Farmer Wrote: Apparently Jesus could have in the garden, or again when He was tempted by satan. (satan offered to make Christ ruler of this world without having to go to the cross if Christ would just kneel to satan.

Another fun one.  Who's narrating that tale?

The garden narrative is found in

and here:



temptation of Jesus is recorded in mat and Luke chapter 4 and in mark 1:12