Four questions for Christians

[Consilius]

[quote='Consilius' pid='476494' dateline='1373589452']
Homosexuality isn't a sin, either.

What type of Roman Catholic are you, precisely? Obviously, you are more progressive than the Church.
[/quote]
The condition of being homosexual is not condemned by Catholics. They are against gay sex and marriage, which I couldn't care less about.

---

[quote='Consilius' pid='476489' dateline='1373588566']
Sin is disobedience to a command.

So if god tells you to rape young virgins, as he did in the OT to not do so, is a sin? Or better yet if a crying baby is found on the battle field and you don't dash it upon the rocks would that be a sin?

Are you only required to keep the ten commandments or do the other 613 mitvoh apply? Failure to obey which of these is sin?

The Jews needed no urging to take revenge on their enemies. It was their imperfect standard. Hypothetically, having mercy on one of these people would have been progressive at the time. But this never happened. God acted according to their standard and weaned them off of it, completing the act with Christ. In the same way, Christ followed Jewish laws only to tell the Jews later that they were not salvation in themselves. The punitive justice of these soldiers was inherently good, but they had to be taught to stop doing it themselves and leave it to God.
The killing of these women and children could have been a coup de grace to the Amalekite nation, as the men had to be killed, but the women and children they left behind were vulnerable to the desert climate and foreign tribes.

What is so significant about the Sabbath that no work could be done?

God was telling his people to lose confidence in their labor and restore it in him.

So pork was incidental and the entire mosaic law was meaningless aside from it relevance in instituting limits to gauge obedience?

The laws coincided with the Jewish culture. Pigs, for example, could have been considered as dirty animals.

[Dionysius]

The Jews needed no urging to take revenge on their enemies. It was their imperfect standard. Hypothetically, having mercy on one of these people would have been progressive at the time. But this never happened. God acted according to their standard and weaned them off of it, completing the act with Christ. In the same way, Christ followed Jewish laws only to tell the Jews later that they were not salvation in themselves. The punitive justice of these soldiers was inherently good, but they had to be taught to stop doing it themselves and leave it to God.
The killing of these women and children could have been a coup de grace to the Amalekite nation, as the men had to be killed, but the women and children they left behind were vulnerable to the desert climate and foreign tribes.

Then sin or what is considered wrong is entirely relative to the time or age? Is this what you are trying to say in an overly wordy and confusing way?

God was telling his people to lose confidence in their labor and restore it in him.

Go only required man to have confidence in him one day per week? Is the day of the week, in which the Sabbath is observed, even relevant? Has it gone by the way of relativity the same as the law?

The laws coincided with the Jewish culture. Pigs, for example, could have been considered as dirty animals.

Again, so the law itself was incidental and merely a device to gauge a believers obedience to God? Is that it?

[Consilius]

Sin has always been sin. Killing another person has always been wrong unless you have good cause to do it. Did the Israelites have good cause? I'd argue yes, in this particular case.

Work still had to be done on the Israelite camp. The regular exercise of not working helped to instill trust in God, irrelevant to the day of the week. I don't jog because I only need to be fit at that point in time. I jog to maintain my fitness for the whole day and restore it when it deteriorates.
The Sabbath day was considered the first day of the week. It showed the prime importance the Jews gave to their religion.

Every bit of the Jewish law had its meaning, whether spiritual or physical. For example, the concept of spiritual cleanliness was manifested in the ritual washing of hands and the eating of only "clean" foods.

[NoahsFarce]

Congratulations. You've made me do a lot of thinking. My head hurts.
To make a rock bigger than himself, God would have to create this rock and make it heavy by an authority higher than himself, which cannot be called upon because it does not exist. This authority would be God. Therefore, the rock can not exist.
God can not make something that can not exist. Such a creature would be illogical. The illogical cannot come from a being that is logical. Or else the being would be illogical and would cease to exist.
God cannot make himself not to exist because that would be self-contradictory, and, since God is truth, he cannot contradict himself. Also illogical and non-existent.
Something that does not exist cannot be done.

So by this logic, God DOES have limitations. He is bound by some set of external rules. And if something exists outside of God, he cannot be the ULTIMATE creator. There are forces that govern possibilities. God is bound by these forces just as you described. Omnipotence suggests an ability to defy all logic. Omnipotence suggests the ability to create impossibilities. But as our discussion has highlighted, the idea of omnipotence is paradoxical and therefore... illogical.

Omnipotence isn't logically possible. Therefore God has limits. Anything with limits is bound by external forces that place these limits. So God might be the creator of us, but he cannot be the creator of everything. With that in mind, the next logical question becomes: who/what created God?

[Consilius]

Nothing exists outside God. The nonexistent is not a realm of possibilities. It is simply nothing. And the illogical does not exist.
God was not created. He has ultimate authority over the existence of everything, including himself.

[Minimalist]

Nothing exists outside God.

Evidence that your fucking god exists?


Didn't think so.

[Consilius]

Funny, how you answer your own questions.
First of all, this was an argument on whether or not omnipotence could exist, and you just derailed it.
The universe was caused by a timeless, spaceless, immutable, immaterial, being.

[genkaus]

The universe was caused by a timeless, spaceless, immutable, immaterial, being.

Any evidence for this claim?

[Consilius]

The question was for Minimalist. You and I are still talking about it on the other thread.

[genkaus]

The question was for Minimalist. You and I are still talking about it on the other thread.

So don't make an unproven claim before proving it there.