Because God is love. Love exists for something TO love. God gave his existence purpose by making other beings exist.

(July 10, 2013 at 11:11 am)Consilius Wrote: Societal values change, morals do not. If they did, you could not condemn the Bible as immoral because the people in the Bible were moral simply because they believed they were.

"Societal values change": correct. "Morals do not": incorrect. Societal values determine their moral structure. This has always been the case. Because the Bible doesn't match up with our moral code now, we can call it immoral. What's more, this is a completely objective rationalization.

(July 10, 2013 at 11:11 am)Consilius Wrote: Witnesses to crimes can't be thrown out of courtrooms because they are the only sources of evidence for the crime. If they mostly agree with each other, they stay.

I'm glad to see you fancy yourself a judge and that you ONLY rely on Witness Testimony for evidence. Good thing they aren't deciding the fate of the universe in the courtroom, or we'd all be screwed.

(July 10, 2013 at 11:11 am)Consilius Wrote: Jesus didn't write things down because his purpose on earth was action. He didn't publicly claim himself God, but let his actions speak for him. He allowed his life to be interpreted by those around him. He also preached to poor, illiterate men and women.

Glad to see that you gleaned his purpose from reading an unreliable source. It's interesting to note that you say that he didn't publicly claim himself as a God. Whether he did or didn't is not the screwy part here: it's that he was elevated to this status by the words of men. The same thing happened to Kim Il-Sung in North Korea. Should we believe he's a god just because the people there thought he was? Were the Pharoahs gods?

When your view is limited by the scope of the bible, it's easy to forget about all the other instances in the world where the exact things happen. Unfortunately, Jesus isn't here to prove that he's a god, and the people who wrote about him being one are also dead. If Jesus is a god who is still living today, there would be more proof of that. I mean, we at least have video footage of Kim Il-Sung, so we know he was at least alive at some point.

You also need to work on your definition of propaganda. The word has gotten a bad rap. Propaganda is propagating an idea to promote it among individuals or groups of people. Whether the propaganda is bad or good is all in the eye of the beholder. Saying the Gospels aren't propaganda is an argument from ignorance, because, by the definition, they are just that; you simply see it as good propaganda.

---

(July 10, 2013 at 11:42 am)Consilius Wrote: Because God is love. Love exists for something TO love. God gave his existence purpose by making other beings exist.

How is God love when love is simply a concept? God, then, is also just a concept.

When you say something like "God is love" you are creating more questions about god than you are actually answering.

(July 10, 2013 at 10:37 am)Consilius Wrote: We are talking about parthenogenesis in a human, which does not naturally occur and could not artificially occur in the 1st century.

How do you know that it does not occur in humans but is not incredibly rare? The fact that it occurs naturally in other animals suggests that it is possible (no matter how improbable) that parthenogenesis can occur in humans.

(July 10, 2013 at 11:11 am)Consilius Wrote: Societal values change, morals do not.

Morals do evolve, change. Old Testament morality was an eye for an eye. New Testament morality was turn the other cheek. Modern morality is not quite as archaic as the OT or nearly as zen as the NT. Modern morality is somewhere in between, having evolved through hundreds of years of human evolution.

(July 10, 2013 at 11:42 am)Consilius Wrote: Because God is love.

So I've heard, but that statement remains as vapid as it was the first time.

Question: If god is love, why send bears to maul forty-two of the beings he supposedly loves for showing disrespect?

(July 10, 2013 at 11:42 am)Consilius Wrote: Love exists for something TO love.

Evidence?

(July 10, 2013 at 11:42 am)Consilius Wrote: God gave his existence purpose by making other beings exist.

Again, god seems to be trapped by human constraints. Why would the purpose of god's existence be contingent upon the existence of others? Surely an omniscient, omnipotent being would capable of finding such on his own.

(July 10, 2013 at 11:59 am)Maelstrom Wrote: Modern morality is somewhere in between, having evolved through hundreds of years of human evolution.

Tens of thousands.

(July 10, 2013 at 11:48 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote:

(July 10, 2013 at 11:11 am)Consilius Wrote: Societal values change, morals do not. If they did, you could not condemn the Bible as immoral because the people in the Bible were moral simply because they believed they were.

"Societal values change": correct. "Morals do not": incorrect. Societal values determine their moral structure. This has always been the case. Because the Bible doesn't match up with our moral code now, we can call it immoral. What's more, this is a completely objective rationalization.

(July 10, 2013 at 11:11 am)Consilius Wrote: Witnesses to crimes can't be thrown out of courtrooms because they are the only sources of evidence for the crime. If they mostly agree with each other, they stay.

I'm glad to see you fancy yourself a judge and that you ONLY rely on Witness Testimony for evidence. Good thing they aren't deciding the fate of the universe in the courtroom, or we'd all be screwed.

(July 10, 2013 at 11:11 am)Consilius Wrote: Jesus didn't write things down because his purpose on earth was action. He didn't publicly claim himself God, but let his actions speak for him. He allowed his life to be interpreted by those around him. He also preached to poor, illiterate men and women.

Glad to see that you gleaned his purpose from reading an unreliable source. It's interesting to note that you say that he didn't publicly claim himself as a God. Whether he did or didn't is not the screwy part here: it's that he was elevated to this status by the words of men. The same thing happened to Kim Il-Sung in North Korea. Should we believe he's a god just because the people there thought he was? Were the Pharoahs gods?

When your view is limited by the scope of the bible, it's easy to forget about all the other instances in the world where the exact things happen. Unfortunately, Jesus isn't here to prove that he's a god, and the people who wrote about him being one are also dead. If Jesus is a god who is still living today, there would be more proof of that. I mean, we at least have video footage of Kim Il-Sung, so we know he was at least alive at some point.

You also need to work on your definition of propaganda. The word has gotten a bad rap. Propaganda is propagating an idea to promote it among individuals or groups of people. Whether the propaganda is bad or good is all in the eye of the beholder. Saying the Gospels aren't propaganda is an argument from ignorance, because, by the definition, they are just that; you simply see it as good propaganda.

---

(July 10, 2013 at 11:42 am)Consilius Wrote: Because God is love. Love exists for something TO love. God gave his existence purpose by making other beings exist.

How is God love when love is simply a concept? God, then, is also just a concept.

When you say something like "God is love" you are creating more questions about god than you are actually answering.

If the Bible was immoral, you would be wrong in calling it so since you believe there is no objective standard for morality. 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.
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.
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.
Love can exist as a concept, but it is also a force because it has physical effects on the world.

---

(July 10, 2013 at 11:55 am)Rationalman Wrote:

(July 10, 2013 at 10:37 am)Consilius Wrote: We are talking about parthenogenesis in a human, which does not naturally occur and could not artificially occur in the 1st century.

How do you know that it does not occur in humans but is not incredibly rare? The fact that it occurs naturally in other animals suggests that it is possible (no matter how improbable) that parthenogenesis can occur in humans.

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?

---

(July 10, 2013 at 11:59 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(July 10, 2013 at 11:11 am)Consilius Wrote: Societal values change, morals do not.

Morals do evolve, change. Old Testament morality was an eye for an eye. New Testament morality was turn the other cheek. Modern morality is not quite as archaic as the OT or nearly as zen as the NT. Modern morality is somewhere in between, having evolved through hundreds of years of human evolution.

The rule still remains that every action should be compensated. In the OT, the philosophy was to do it yourself. In the NT, they said that God should be allowed to take care of it. The same rule is being followed in different ways.
If something like "an eye for an eye" constituted a moral standard by itself, then not getting back at someone who did something to you would be contrary to this standard, immoral. That word doesn't quite fit this case. If "turn the other cheek" was a moral standard, revenge would be immoral and Christ would have preached immorality to the Jews and to the God of the Bible, who would have previously implemented a moral standard that he was now removing. God would have been openly shifting the goalposts.
What is immoral is that a wrongdoer never gets punishment by any means.

---

(July 10, 2013 at 12:09 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(July 10, 2013 at 11:42 am)Consilius Wrote: Because God is love.

So I've heard, but that statement remains as vapid as it was the first time.

Question: If god is love, why send bears to maul forty-two of the beings he supposedly loves for showing disrespect?

(July 10, 2013 at 11:42 am)Consilius Wrote: Love exists for something TO love.

Evidence?

(July 10, 2013 at 11:42 am)Consilius Wrote: God gave his existence purpose by making other beings exist.

Again, god seems to be trapped by human constraints. Why would the purpose of god's existence be contingent upon the existence of others? Surely an omniscient, omnipotent being would capable of finding such on his own.

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.
When you are happy, you want to express it by doing good things to other people. You don't keep it to yourself.
I did not say God's existence was dependent on us. I said that God fulfilled his personal objective by making us to love.

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: 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.

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: 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.

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: 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.

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: 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.

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: 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.

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: 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.

(July 10, 2013 at 12:35 pm)Consilius Wrote: 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.