Quote:You do know That Romans and Ephesians were written by the same guy right?

Ephesians is one of the 7-8 pseudo Pauline epistles. Try again.

The rest of your post sounds like white noise to me unfortunately, but thanks for taking the time.

(January 14, 2013 at 1:03 am)Ryantology Wrote: Call it whatever you want. It is an 'affliction' God made possible.

Actually no. God allowed it to happen Adam made it possiable.

Quote:Which God did on purpose. Or do you suggest that God was incapable of making humanity invulnerable to the temptations of sin?

No I agree. For Sin allows Choice. For if there was no sin there would only be the Expressed Will of God. With sin we have been given the ablity to choose God's expressed will or our own.

Quote:I'm not invoking the Greek idea of free will, but your own. We have the 'free will' to seek redemption from sin because God either could not or would not design us so that sin was never an issue in the first place.

Again by orginal design we were without sin. God gave us the choice to sin in the garden, and outside of the garden He gives us the choice of redemption. We did not always have sin, but we have always been given a choice.

Quote:Some behaviors defined as 'sins' are behaviors which are virtually impossible to avoid committing. They are behaviors hardcoded into human brains. They are also behaviors God is guilty of committing himself, which is especially hilarious when one considers the fact that one of the worst sins is supposed to be 'hypocrisy'.

When you you guys understand? The point is not to avoid sin, but to seek attonement for it.

Quote:Being 'free of sin' is another way of saying 'don't be the way God designed you to be'.

Again no we were orginally designed to be perfect, and we were for some time. We were designed to choose to either be with God or eternally seperated from him.

Quote:It is his fault we cannot shake them. He made this universe, didn't he? It's a rigged (or flawed) game, and telling us to 'atone' for it merely blames the victims of bad design.

Again it is not about avoiding sin it about being given the oppertunity to choose. Sin affords choice.

In order to choose we must have options. in this life we have been given the ablity to choose God's will for us or to remain apart from God. Don't think of it as sin in the traditional sense. Your choice to remain away from God is what this life and subsequently sin is all about. Sin is not nessarily evil, is is a willful expression to be outside of what God wants for you. At it's core Sin is a choice or option given to us.

Quote:Sometimes I can't tell whether I find your candidness about the nightmarishly psychotic nature of your faith refreshing or terrifying.

It is, what it is. Who am I to hide from or try and excuse what God has done? If He wanted this stuff to be unknown then He certainly could have lost the records long before I came along. No, this stuff is in there for a reason. That reason is to help you 'good' people to make a choice about God. In order to make a choice you must have a complete understanding of His nature. The only question is will you see how trivial judging God by a 'moral' standard is, and seek to understand why He did what He did, or will you stand behind the morality that allows you to live your lives justifing the way you want to live, and use it to condemn God?

All i can do is present the facts as they have been written, and try and share insight as I have oppertunity.

---

(January 14, 2013 at 1:30 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

Quote:You do know That Romans and Ephesians were written by the same guy right?

Ephesians is one of the 7-8 pseudo Pauline epistles. Try again.

The rest of your post sounds like white noise to me unfortunately, but thanks for taking the time.

Romans was also written by paul, hence the question, and the comment. (If Paul wrote both He would not have contradicted himself simply because he was writting to a different region.)
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/ntintro/Rom.htm

Quote:God allowed it to happen Adam made it possiable.

Well then fuck the both of them.

Quote:Romans was also written by paul, hence the question, and the comment. (If Paul wrote both He would not have contradicted himself simply because he was writting to a different region.)

Look up what "pseudo" means. You'll learn something new about the composition of your holey book.

(January 13, 2013 at 2:49 pm)Drich Wrote: It does not work that way. any and all 'personal revelation' must first be verified in scripture. Otherwise the 'personal revelation' can be deemed not of God.

How does one go about verifying this in scripture? Had god not ordered people to do things in the past without an explicit scriptural reference to it? Or has he stopped doing this the moment we gained the ability to accurately record him doing so?

Quote:As apposed to your model of 'morality?' where popular vote reigns supreme? You do know that is how the Nazis got away with killing millions right? Popular morality changes from person to person, culture to culture and generation to generation. It is an ever changing variable and as such can not ever truly be deemed a Standard.

I'll be charitable and leave aside the rather pathetic Godwin, but don't presume to know my moral code, Drich. My morality has nothing to do with popular vote, and I think you know that; my ethics are developed from a rational consideration of the effects my actions have on other people, and from my personal responsibility and empathy to those around me. The laws of our society aren't passed down from your sky-dictator, but from an evolutionary and social development, designed to maintain and propagate a healthy society.

And who are you to talk about "Standards" anyway? You don't have a fucking standard! According to you, god's intent overrules any sense of morality you might have, so all the things that normal people find to be evil- you know, murder, rape, theft, all the big ones- are in your mind conditional on what your god has to say about them, case by case! You've spent plenty of time explaining that to me, you can't then turn around and say you have a standard, objective morality, because you don't.

Which is it? Is your concept of good and evil objective and therefore unchanging, or does your god decide whether each individual act is sinful or not?

Quote:I am fine with my death at any time. as far as God using you as my angel of death, then know if you have been given this revelation then come at night while I am alseep, otherwise you may find it 'difficult' to do what you have been tasked to do. that is unless you can show me in the bible where YOU have been given this authority over life and Death.

Now, does that have to be specific, like an actual order, or can I do the standard theist thing and just twist around any random passage to mean what I need it to mean?

I do need to remind you that this is a hypothetical, by the way. Unlike you, I know that all murder is wrong, no matter who orders it.

Quote:Just the oppsite It is the bible that would keep me from killing anyone even if I thought for sure God told me to. So, no you have it backwards. The bible trumps personal revelation.

Do you honestly think you're such a monster, you require a threat of eternal torture just to stop yourself from killing people? Because I think you've got Stockholm Syndrome toward an idea. But fine, let me rephrase the question: say you found a scriptural, explicit order for you to kill your family. Would you do it?

Quote: they are not my definations sport. Read your bible.
It is the soceity yoou live in that has change the definations of words away from how God has used them to justify the perversions it wants to live in.

If we are having a Christian discussion, about the God of the bible then it is by the biblical definations we will use and choose our words.

But for the sake of utility, if not just simple politeness, it would have been great if you had answered the question I asked. Instead, you chose to ignore it completely and go off on some tangent before deciding to tell me what I should have meant, and then expected me to play catch up. It's rude, not to mention completely ineffectual.

Quote:Which is what this life is all about. Making the desision you just made. Just remember yoour words when you receive judgement.

Said every thug demanding protection money, ever.

Quote:Because like it or not you are a member of creation, as such whether you can admit this or not, you long to be apart of creation, as that was how you were designed. being torn away from what you long for, will bring suffering and torment.

Ooh, I have a bit of a thing about people telling me what I want... And this is a weaksauce argument anyway.

Quote:Great over view of my work, now show me that what you said is indeed accurate. Show me where I disagree on what is written down, show me or rather ask me to show you to present the evidence to support what I have said. When/if I can't then know your statement here is correct.

Proof? Literally every word you have said in this thread since it started. Every last argument you've made. All of them.

Your interpretation is pretty clear based on your posts. Murder is not murder, so long as god says it's okay. Need I say more?

[You lost me. When under the New covenant have I said God ordered peoples deaths?]

You did not say "Based under the New covenant", you said, "What makes killing a sin is whether or nor God sanctioned the death or if someone took it upon themselves to kill outside of Gods' expressed will."

You can't just go revising the stipulations of your irrational statements to make them rational. If you were actually referring to the old testament law, you would've put it in there. Don't get all self righteous because I actually took what you said literally as being what you believe.

And as for murder, you seem to have made up your own definition of it. According to the bible, a murder must be intentional and premeditated--spilling of innocent blood is considered wrong. Just because god sanctions a murder, does not mean it is not murder. I come to this conclusion not because I disagree with the belief that god is the arbiter of morality thus above judgement--but because he himself claims to have murdered countless individuals who by his own definition: were innocent. Contradictions abound, and give me reason to doubt his infallability, and thus his reality. Hence, without this fake being you wrongly consider to be omnipotent and thus infallable: murder is murder. Black is black. Life isn't grey, and you aren't a risk should you ever do acquire "voices" in your head. By supporting, worshipping, praising and promoting an undeserving, murderous, empirical God, believers' normal moral and legal inhibitors are erased.

Example of this contradiction: Just ask Jericho, Canaanites, every first born of Egypt, and every innocent child, born or unborn--who endured the flood.

(Deuteronomy 1:39)
"Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it."

(Hosea 13:16)
"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

(Samuel 12:13-18)
God murdered David and Bathsheba’s first-born son, a human being, after 7 days of his life to punish the parents. By gods' definition of murder--this was a murder because no one is capable of moral accountability at the age of 7 days.

(Exodus 23:22)
But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

What happens when two adversaries both have god on their side?

I'm not confused as to what the bible says about god. It says god is love. (1 John 4:7-11)
If god is love, then god is love. That's what it says, that's what it says.
It also says that, "greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13 NIV). Seeing as how Jesus is God, and Jesus did just that--then there is no greater love for man, than Gods'. Based on John 3:16 and Romans 5:8, this love is unconditional. We are all born into sin, thus you can't say that god doesn't love me because I don't love him. He loves me and he loves you, period. I am his creation, he loves himself and everything he creates thus he must love me. If he didn't love humanity, he wouldn't have "sacrificed" himself then explained that that is the greatest love there is.

Esquilax & missluckie26. Our two new heavyweights

(January 14, 2013 at 5:01 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Esquilax & missluckie26. Our two new heavyweights

Damn right

Quote:Your interpretation is pretty clear based on your posts. Murder is not murder, so long as god says it's okay. Need I say more?

I think what's also pretty clear is that his interpretation is whatever he needs it to be to suit his current argument. I fully expect that Drich will come back with a "when did I ever say that?" pretty soon. Look forward to it

(January 14, 2013 at 1:36 am)Drich Wrote: Again it is not about avoiding sin it about being given the oppertunity to choose. Sin affords choice.

In order to choose we must have options. in this life we have been given the ablity to choose God's will for us or to remain apart from God.

How can we choose, if so many people claim their god is the one true god? (and they're all different gods)
How can we chose when they all stink of man-made myth?
How can we choose, when the single piece of information about your god is a book written by a lot of people long ago and who knows what their intentions were? (the same goes for the other gods)

Your grand failure is in understanding the big picture that atheists see.
This is not about either believe in your god or nothing. This is about either believe in this god, that god, the other god, etc, etc, etc or nothing.
And believe is the operative word here.
-- to Believe = accept as an accurate description of reality without proof.
-Believe in other people's claims.
-Believe in whatever is written in a book.
-Or not.

But this is taking us away from this thread's subject....

(January 14, 2013 at 1:36 am)Drich Wrote: That reason is to help you 'good' people to make a choice about God. In order to make a choice you must have a complete understanding of His nature. The only question is will you see how trivial judging God by a 'moral' standard is, and seek to understand why He did what He did, or will you stand behind the morality that allows you to live your lives justifing the way you want to live, and use it to condemn God?

All i can do is present the facts as they have been written, and try and share insight as I have oppertunity.

Aye, that much is true.... you present what is written, with a little interpretation thrown in to help us 'good' people understand it differently from its literal meaning.

Whatever your god did and made it into the book was obviously justified.
It couldn't possibly have been an a posteriori made up excuse for one people to take over a piece of land.... no, that would be too commonplace.
The winners never exaggerate when they write accounts of their own victories. They never factor in the help they got from their favorite deity, when they write about it... no, they're always completely impartial and independent in their writings.... aren't they? (I think Min is the best person to answer this, given his knowledge of history)

Why do atheists even bother about debating Jesus? There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus is nothing but a story corrupted from previous stories. 'Christ' actually comes from two supposed Roman documents which were actually written (copied?) by Christian monks in the Medieval period. One of those shows a clear forging of the the name Chrestianos to Christianos. There are no original documents around the time in existence that mention Jesus or Christ.

So.... if you are going to believe anything those biased monks wrote, then you also have to believe that Chrestus led a rebellion against Julius Caesar. Jewish temples were not just places of worship then, they were banks and held gold and money for lending. That is why, around that time, Roman emperors and governors, like Agrippa II (Herod 2) had trouble with the priests, who were in effect the bankers of their time.

It is written that Chrestus led an uprising, it was probably about money, interest rates or something else that Julius Caesar wanted to impose on the bank.

Then, 20 years later, Nero blamed the Chrestians for burning part of Rome. We have all been told how bad Nero was, but in fact he wanted a better deal for the poor and this probably enraged the Jewish bankers (he called them Chrestians, as named from the Chrestus uprising 20 years before) who set fire to some of the city.

Chrestus and his followers were persecuted and put to death in the arena, they were probably Jewish bankers and certainly had nothing to do with mythical 'Christians' which is just a corruption of Chrestionos, followers of Chrestus.

If you think I am being anti-Semite, the fact that Jewish temples were used as banks is written online in Jewish wikkis on Jewish sites.