Did I miss anything?

[Ryantology]

That is the most insane thing you have said to date. If babies/kids do not belong to their parents, then who is responsible for them?

If my grandmother is placed in my care, does that mean that she becomes property I own and that I can do with her as I please?

first things first, so what? So what if you were put in a cell and told to do x.. If you were in that situation then that is how you would have to perform.

A very apt analogy to your god, indeed.

Second thing how do you know you were not given and or elected to live this life to prove yourself to God?

How do I know I was not (insert any ridiculous scenario here)?

What are you a communist? Where do you live that does not allow you to own what you create?

Where I live, I'm not allowed to own human beings as chattel. Not anymore, at least. Where I live, people are not allowed to destroy an airplane full of passengers, or a traffic-heavy bridge or an occupied building or a synthetic heart beating in someone's chest, even if they personally created these things.

Are orangutans sentient? Are dolphins sentient?

There are laws all over the world prohibiting people from destroying these animals without a very good reason.

When man finally creates a viable AI (if we haven't already) will it belong to someone? Of course it will.

That's your assumption, and I don't share it.

Just like babies belong to their parents, orangutans and dolphins to their owners. If you do not think any of these beings do not belong to someone, have one do damage to something that belongs to someone else's, and see who the damaged properity owner goes to for retribution, the sentient being who's ownership is being discussed, or the one who has taken ownership/responsibility of the beings care. Have one of these being die and see who is responsible.

And yet, you can't kill your own baby without someone coming after you with retribution in mind. I wonder why that is.

The price of sin period, is Death.

Is this an arbitrary decision on God's part, or some ineffable law of reality that even God can't possibly contradict by saying "You're forgiven, and you don't even need to do anything in return"?

Do I really need to make a list, or can't you just admit that you do things God considers to be a sin?

You do not keep the law of the prophets and you teach others not to. You don't deserve the forgiveness you seek and your actions demonstrate that you are not sincere in seeking it. Regardless of who's right about the afterlife, your eternal situation is going to be the same as mine.

[Polaris]

I think you missed a few Damned "insert group" threads.

What is an insert group.

It's alluding to the cookie cutter threads that all end up having the same exact premise (well one of the threads actually reminded me of something the Christian South would say). Insert group just means to change the name of the group to whatever you want like Damned Yanks, Damned Blue Dogs, etc.

[Cyberman]

"they'/those people" (that for you stimster)

That's ok. I read all your posts in the voice of NephilimFree anyway. Makes them sound a little more rational.

[Drich]

That is the most insane thing you have said to date. If babies/kids do not belong to their parents, then who is responsible for them?

If my grandmother is placed in my care, does that mean that she becomes property I own and that I can do with her as I please?

So for you, your grandmother is your off spring. Something/someone you created???
(Because that is what is being discussed)
Well, for the rest of us grandmothers are points of origins, and not generally created by the rest of us.

A very apt analogy to your god, indeed.

Indeed, indeed.

How do I know I was not (insert any ridiculous scenario here)?

If someone gave you something you did not want would you fight to keep it?

Where I live, I'm not allowed to own human beings as chattel.

strawman. Where was ownership of another human being as chatted ever suggested?

Not anymore, at least. Where I live, people are not allowed to destroy an airplane full of passengers, or a traffic-heavy bridge or an occupied building or a synthetic heart beating in someone's chest, even if they personally created these things.

There are laws all over the world prohibiting people from destroying these animals without a very good reason.

what are you talking about?!?!?
I asked can one own a dolphin, or orangutan. These animals are considered sentient. Yet they are own by people and companies. This was to refute the idea that a sentient being could not be owned.

When man finally creates a viable AI (if we haven't already) will it belong to someone? Of course it will.

That's your assumption, and I don't share it.

So, if when a company spends millions of dollars if not billions of dollars developing an AI.. It is your professional opinion that said company would not have ownership of said AI?

Business man are you?

Is this an arbitrary decision on God's part, or some ineffable law of reality that even God can't possibly contradict by saying "You're forgiven, and you don't even need to do anything in return"?

This is a completely arbitrary assessment. What do you base any of this on? Right now it seems like your whole Arguement is based on a general lack of understanding.

You do not keep the law of the prophets and you teach others not to. You don't deserve the forgiveness you seek and your actions demonstrate that you are not sincere in seeking it. Regardless of who's right about the afterlife, your eternal situation is going to be the same as mine.

Based on what?[/quote]

[Cato]

"they'/those people" (that for you stimster)

That's ok. I read all your posts in the voice of NephilimFree anyway. Makes them sound a little more rational.

I don't know if I've quite come across anything so insulting. Well played. Remind me never to cross you.

Fuck, that was righteous.

[Esquilax]

that is the most insane thing you have said to date. If babies/kids do not belong to their parents, then who is responsible for them?

Whoops, missed this. Kids don't belong to their parents, kids are raised by their parents. It's a very different relationship, and one that, notably, we put a stop to if the child is being mistreated. Even if your comparison of children and parents to god and man was apt, no court on the planet would allow god to remain in possession of any sentient entity if he announced his intentions to cause the amount of suffering he causes to humans daily. Neglect gets your parental rights removed.

first things first, so what? So what if you were put in a cell and told to do x.. If you were in that situation then that is how you would have to perform.

Might makes right isn't exactly a compelling moral stance to take, however. You can't start the conversation off by saying that we owe god everything, and then end it with "well, you have to bow and scrape anyway, he's stronger than you." Somewhere along the line your moral argument has taken a complete one eighty.

Second thing how do you know you were not given and or elected to live this life to prove yourself to God?

If I was given this life then it's entrapment, and if I elected to live it then I'm sure I'd remember that, and I know that I, as I am now, would not accept that I have anything to prove to this kind of god of my own free will. There would have to be some element of coercion in there, for me to accept this kind of deal.

what are you a communist? Where do you live that does not allow you to own what you create?

Where I live emergent creations aren't automatically credited to the initial creator: parodies, remixes, refurbished items and so on aren't the possessions of the initial material builder, but the one who fashioned them into something new. Which is beside the point anyway, since I'm arguing that consciousness isn't something you can own. It's a special case.

you assume too much. I am not willing to blindly accept the idea that anything I create belongs no one.

You're equivocating between objects and life forms.

Are orangutans sentient? Are dolphins sentient? When man finally creates a viable AI (if we haven't already) will it belong to someone? Of course it will. Just like babies belong to their parents, orangutans and dolphins to their owners. If you do not think any of these beings do not belong to someone, have one do damage to something that belongs to someone else's, and see who the damaged properity owner goes to for retribution, the sentient being who's ownership is being discussed, or the one who has taken ownership/responsibility of the beings care. Have one of these being die and see who is responsible.

So you admit that within the context of "ownership" of life forms there are responsibilities that the "owner" has, and that if those responsibilities aren't met then their ownership is terminated for the sake of the owned party?

Because I'm pretty sure that if you own a dolphin and you starve it, and let it hurt itself, and plan to send it to hell, then that would all qualify as severe mistreatment and land you some jail time. There's a duty of care there... are you sure you don't want to rethink the comparisons you're making? They don't actually serve your case very well at all.

Even in a macro sense we as citizens of nations and or other religious/secular groups belong communally to that group and can do things that impact that group as a whole with our actions. We may be individuals but we never truly stand alone we will always belong to someone or something.

Communal groups are symbiotic relationships, not owner-and-chattel ones.

The price of sin period, is Death. Our God died on the cross because He was paying for our sin. This death was a physical representation of the Spiritual death that God the Son Experienced, As He for our sake was separated from the Father while on that Cross.

So when I sin I only die for three days and then it's completely reversed, to my benefit? Cool!

No I said the cost was Death.

Alright. And... why did that cost need to be paid? What's so difficult about forgiveness that it requires a blood sacrifice? And how does someone else sacrificing themselves make forgiveness of other people easier?

you also have no grounds to question God outside the parameters the bible lays out, as without it you would know nothing of Him. Therefore to give you an answer from the bible based on a question constructed from the very same book is valid for no other reason than it is the only authoritiave source in which an answer can be given.

Ah, see, there's the problem. Logic is still a thing that happens, and when the book contradicts logic then it doesn't matter whether it's the only source of information or not, it can still be wrong. There's a third option here, and that's that the book has it wrong and so nobody has the answer.

we were never charged for being correct. We are only charged with being responsible to what we have been given, much like how the educational system works in this country.

When I was growing up Pluto was a planet and their was a coming ice age expected to create glaciers that would span from the north pole to Washington DC because of the global cooling that was taking place due to all the pollution being created by our cars and factories. If we had a test and it asked us about pluto's planetary status or the coming ice age, and we put the currently known truth down as our answer do you think we would have been rewarded for our effort, or do you think it would have been marked wrong?

That's a weird stance to take. So god credits you with accepting wrong information, because that's all he saw fit to provide you with? If that's the case, wouldn't the most sensible course of action be to completely eliminate any hint of christianity from the world so that future generations would have even less information to work with, and thus higher overall chances of getting into heaven? It's too late to improve the chances for ourselves that way, but we could certainly be charitable to the future, under these conditions.

not according to Christ:
Mat 7:
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [n]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’

Surely one who prophesy and cast out demons simply believes... That fact that they call out lord, lord says the simply believe.

Again my theology has nothing to do with what is written in mat 7, for these are the words of Christ Himself on the subject matter.
Not my own.
To construct a doctrine that contradicts or at the very least does not take this passage into consideration is that 'theology' you were speaking of, which differs considerably from what I did for you when the question was asked.

And some other christian could point to another passage and use it to say that faith alone is sufficient. The bible is kind of a hodgepodge, in that respect. How can we tell?

does Christ Himself not have final authority in the matter? Again his words not my own personal doctrine constructed from verse fragments scattered across the NT.

That's the problem you face when you open your holy book up to interpretation, especially to the extent that the bible is. Ain't my fault that spinning the words to mean something other than what they literally mean is a common pastime for christians.

did God the Son not die on the cross?

Only if you have an extremely different definition of death than what it means to human beings. Most of us don't hop up three days later and become gods.

I do not understand why your having such a hard time with this concept. All of Christianity recognizes and does not argue this point.
Christ died on our behalf for our sins.
We owed a death for our sin. Christ died so we do not have to.

I'd be dead for three days for my sins too, if it meant I got to go god tier and rule the universe afterward. That's the problem I'm having: you keep mentioning this cost, but then we both know that the actual consequences of paying that cost were not only negated, but fully reversed days later, within the parameters of the story.

what makes you believe that death was not apart of the garden life?
Their were two special trees in the garden. The tree of knowledge of good and evil (which brought death) and the tree of life which according to genesis brought eternal life. Adam and Eve were allowed to eat from all trees in the garden (including the tree of life) they could not eat from the tree of knowledge. Eating from the tree of life is what made them Immortal. For everything in the garden to be untouched by death, the garden as a whole would also have to eat of this tree. Otherwise the garden and everything in it would be as it is now, and be subject to death.

Point taken.

now who is wandering off into his own special brand of theology? (Speaking where the bible is silent.)

I did provide other examples too, and there's more: like, seriously, why create the tree in the first place?

they were immortal, they died, that life ended, and their mortality began. Then they were expelled from the garden so as not to eat from the tree of life and begin anew. (They proven them selves to be untrust worthy in their word about not eating forbidden fruit.)

So when god said "die," what he really meant was "live." See, that's exactly the problem I was talking about.

so you think God should have set things up with man as He did with the angels? Are you not familiar with lucifer's (and 1/3 of the angel population) fall from grace?

So god can't learn from the past and ensure that doesn't happen with his next creation?

No tree there, no planned opportunity to chose, no plan for redemption. Just one mistake/insurrection, and eternal damnation. to you that is better?

No, that's mystifying to me too. I don't really get why god makes such a big deal over single mistakes to begin with, it just seems like a huge overreaction. But then, you'd think an all powerful, all knowing being would be able to create beings smart enough and rational enough not to rebel for the sake of their own self interest, and wouldn't be irrational enough himself to damn the entire species for a single honest mistake with no ill intent, covering humanity from both eventualities, there.

Thanks, but I'd rather live in God's world rather than yours. Here I have been given a choice to choose salvation over damnation.

I'm really confused as to why you took my much simpler and straightforward metric for Eden, immediately overlaid the old, flawed rule system over it for no reason, and then decided that it's somehow my fault that god's rules cause perfectly nice scenarios to fail.

again no, we are only responsible to what we have been given over to understand, and not the whole complete truth/standard.

Seems like Eden could be pretty evil to begin with, then.

Do I really need to make a list, or can't you just admit that you do things God considers to be a sin?

How are any of those things horrible enough to warrant hell?

I mean, you can exclude the bong and the beer right away, since I don't do drugs or drink. Take out anger, because I'm a pretty level guy even at my angriest. What is it about what's left that means I deserve the harshest punishment ever devised?

[Crossless2.0]

Do I really need to make a list, or can't you just admit that you do things God considers to be a sin?

How are any of those things horrible enough to warrant hell?

I mean, you can exclude the bong and the beer right away, since I don't do drugs or drink. Take out anger, because I'm a pretty level guy even at my angriest. What is it about what's left that means I deserve the harshest punishment ever devised?

You poor, deluded sinner. The answer would be clear if you weren't an unrepentant lecherous masturbator. I'm afraid it's off to hell with you.

[Esquilax]

You poor, deluded sinner. The answer would be clear if you weren't an unrepentant lecherous masturbator. I'm afraid it's off to hell with you.

That's the thing: a free sex life is pretty much my only "sin," but I never cheat on any woman or man I'm in a committed relationship with, and my dabblings in erotica are only ever about fictional women, which can't possibly trigger that dumb adultery thoughtcrime commandment. So even in my "sinning" I'm more honest, moral and open than the traditional picture of the type, so for god to look at me and decide I go to hell, he's really stretching himself, there.

Meanwhile, I'm willing to bet an adulterer who actually cheats on his wife but repents will be bound for heaven, so...

[Fidel_Castronaut]

How are any of those things horrible enough to warrant hell?

I mean, you can exclude the bong and the beer right away, since I don't do drugs or drink. Take out anger, because I'm a pretty level guy even at my angriest. What is it about what's left that means I deserve the harshest punishment ever devised?

You poor, deluded sinner. The answer would be clear if you weren't an unrepentant lecherous masturbator. I'm afraid it's off to hell with you.

It's ironic really because if there's on person on this board who would be the least likely to get into a Christian heaven (if it existed) based on nothing more than their behaviour here it would be drich.

[Crossless2.0]

It's ironic really because if there's on person on this board who would be the least likely to get into a Christian heaven (if it existed) based on nothing more than their behaviour here it would be drich.

Drich? That loving cupful of Jesus spunk? Now you've gone too far. Of course he'll be in heaven -- probably sharing a golden condo with Ray Comfort and Jeffrey Dahmer.

God sure can pick 'em.