Johnny Skeptic

Since God has sinned, he will not get into heaven either.

God could not possibly have instituted a judicial system to protect the innocent. If he wanted to protect innocent people he would protect innocent women from rapists, and protect innocent people from being injured and killed in automobile accidents that are not their fault.

What system has God instituted to protect innocent people from himself? I discuss this issue in detail in my post #646.

It appears that you do not know what the Bible is, or rather was. The Bible was a group of ORIGINAL writings, none of which exist today. No one knows which writings originally comprised the Bible, how often the original writings have been changed, and whether the writings that were chosen to be in the Bible were chosen by men using their own judgment, or by God.

JPD

Nevertheless, it is the risk you take! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! . If after considering the evidence you still come to this conclusion then you accept that there are risks inherent in your decision! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

I'll quote a little bit and project just a tad - ah that's good!

Ooops - pushed too hard!

JPD

God manages to hover around in there because you can't understand his explanation of why his various excursions into violence are anything other than what you think they are. That's because he has chosen to limit the degree to which you are exposed to his thinking.

Angra Mainyu

I reached the conclusion that He wouldn’t need to, based on the premises you provided – i.e., God’s existence, no pain and suffering at first, resurrection, etc.

Yes, he would have deliberately made people with aging and dying genes, and He would have deliberately made a world with all sorts of dangers that would kill people in a variety of manners. Even worse, He himself would throw the vast majority of people in a lake of fire, specifically to kill them.

No, that is not my argument. I would be so responsible if I had the choice to bring them to a world in which they would not suffer, and I chose to bring them to a world where they would, instead.
I don’t know whether that exists, but assuming there is, then God freely created a world much worse than what He could have created – and He will deliberately kill most people in a lake of fire.

No, because their ignorance cannot have been avoided. How could children and babies have known? And even adults, how could they have know if they did not have access to information that would have allowed them to determine that?

Further, some of those disasters can happen anywhere on the planet.
No, my definition of evil applies. I mentioned not only evil, but suffering and imperfection as well. Evil would only refer to intentional actions.

My point is: suppose God is perfect, as well as evil-free.
Then, God decided to take a course of action (creating Creation) that would result in evil, suffering, and imperfection. Thus, due to God’s action, the universe went from perfection and pure goodness (a universe where the only entity was God, previous to creation), to imperfection, suffering and yes, evil too. Thus, that would contradict the assumption that God was perfect and perfectly good, since such entity would have refrained to taking action that would result in imperfection, evil and suffering.

I’m saying that every text needs to be interpreted. A reader has to know the language, the cultural references, etc., etc., in order to interpret meaning.
In some cases, it’s justifiable to say that a text “says” something, because every reader with a certain knowledge would interpret it in that way. For instance, it’s clear that the Bible says that God exists.

On the other hand, sometimes a text is not clear enough to be interpreted in a similar way by nearly all readers. In fact, the Bible clearly is such text, so it’s clear that there will be different interpretations. If the Bible claims otherwise, it is wrong. For instance, only in this thread, we’ve seen at least 3 Christians with very different takes on Christianity and homosexuality (namely you, rhutchin and Gamera).

First, Catholics don’t consider the Bible to be the only source of dogma: they also count Catholic Tradition, and both have to be analyze in light of the Church’s Magisterium. So, someone could argue that they’re the “truest” Christians according to those standards.

But that aside, even if you consider only Biblical standards, rhutchin and others would not be Christians according to your Biblical standards. However, they would be Christians according to their Biblical standards – according to their interpretation of the Bible.

So, it’s about definitions. Personally, I prefer to define “Christian” not by any of the zillion Biblical standards, but based on whether they consider themselves Christian.

While you never said thought crimes, I have the impression that in your system, atheists will be executed for their beliefs. If I’m wrong, then could you explain your position, please?

As for why create human beings, again, He could have created a perfect world – if the world after resurrection will be that – or, indeed, refrain from creating Creation altogether. By creating, God is introducing imperfection, pain and evil in a previously perfect universe…which refutes the assumption that there was only perfection before Creation.

No, I didn’t state as much. I wouldn’t call the shark evil. It would be an evil act on God’s part to create that shark, because He would be doing it consciously. But that aside, let us limit evil to direct acts.
Then, you still have the same problem. God would have decided to create a Creation where imperfection, suffering and evil (all three) occur.


Ok, then suffering has always existed…well, not always. It didn’t exist before Creation, and it won’t exist after resurrection (or will it? I’m not sure about your position on that).

Still, the fact remains that God would have chosen to introduce suffering, pain, evil and imperfection in what was perfect, but that would shaken the assumption that it was perfect.

No, that doesn’t result in credibility, because the Bible according to you does not contradict science (or rather, it might not contradict science, but let’s assume it doesn’t). When science learns something, a person can interpret the Bible to accommodate that. But it is remarkable that before science knows, the Bible is interpreted in a way that would contradict further discoveries.

For instance, before Darwin, people interpreted the Bible in a way that was, indeed, in conflict with evolution. Today, many people still interpret it in that way, whereas others don’t, but I will point out that an interpretation of the Bible that doesn’t conflict with evolution, didn’t exist before Darwin.

Incidentally, the Quran can also be interpreted in ways that don’t contradict science. Would you argue that that suggests it’s the word of God?


I was asking for a more general definition of “unnatural”, that leads you to that specification in the case of sexual behavior. Could you provide such definition, please? Or do you reckon that sexual acts are the only unnatural ones?

That aside, your example would mean that every sexual act other than vaginal penetration would be “unnatural”, and not only homosexual acts. Am I reading this right?


First, that contradicts your claim that [your interpretation of] the Bible does not contradict science, beyond a shadow of doubt. Clearly, it contradicts evolution, then it contradicts science.

Second, that humans aren’t animals is erroneous, but that’s not the point here. You consider certain sexual conducts to be “unnatural”; I contend that they do happen in Nature (in humans and in other species).

The argument that there are laws written in the Bible that ban homosexuality for humans, seems to be circular reasoning. You said that “The translators condemned homosexuality becuase they knew that it was unnatural and completely against everything was designed for.” However, how did they know that before they interpreted those books as condemning all homosexual behavior?

At any rate, if you meant something different, the argument that it is “unnatural” doesn’t work if you base it on the Bible, because in that case it would be sinful because God decrees so, not “unnatural” because of the actions itself – which, again, happen in nature.

The argument that it’s unnatural because it doesn’t work, doesn’t seem to work, either. What if two people are sterile, or if a woman is too old and cannot have children anymore?
In those cases, sex does not work as a means of reproduction, either. Is it unnatural?
Further, what about masturbation? It certainly doesn’t work as a means of reproduction.

That aside, your argument would seem to assume that the intent is reproduction, so homosexual acts “don’t work”. But the intent is not reproduction, and they do work: they achieve their intended goal.

You seem to misunderstand.

If you argue that the Bible teaches a Creation of a planet in seven days, I will not challenge the contention that the Bible teaches so. That’s the contention I wasn’t going to challenge.

If, on the other hand, contend that the planted was created in seven days, as described in the Bible, I will challenge that contention. If you claim you have evidence, I’d like to see it!

To be perfectly clear, I’ll re-quote what I challenge:
I challenge that contention. I contend that you cannot prove that the Bible was created in seven days. Furthermore, I contend that it was not created in seven days.

The arguments are that there is no evidence of the existence of God. The nature of the evidence wasn’t necessary: there’s no evidence at all.

If you claim otherwise, I challenge you to prove that Biblegod exists.

I have consider the Bible more than most people I know have. I have seen more than enough to know that it is wrong.
Should I spend my time studying it as a math student would study math?
If that is the requirement, I will repeat the contention: God does not give me the means to learn what you claim to know about His existence. The Bible is only one religious source; there are many. I don’t have time to study the Bible to that extent, but no one in the world can dedicate that amount of time to study every religion, since it would require much more than 24 hours a day. Thus, even if there were evidence of God contained in the Bible, and even if every person’s intellect were enough to realize that the Bible proves BG’s existence, a person would not have any way of deciding which book they’d have to dedicate so much time too.

In short, it would always be God’s fault.

Still, I’ll argue that I know enough to know that the Bible, as interpreted by you, is wrong. Incidentally, have you studied evolution as a college student would? Have you studied the Quran as a college student wound study math? The Vedas?

Yes, I think I’ve replied to that already. Again, someone could ask you the same about all the other religions, that they might claim prove another God(s)

I would argue that they don’t have to know that things like homosexuality and many other “sins” are “wrong”, or that they will be executed for them.
In fact, they may well have other religions, other moral codes, etc.

No, no one can lie unknowingly. That’s a contradiction.
Also, many do study the Bible, reaching conclusions that are far different from yours (and from one another). So, I’m afraid you are mistaken on that as well.


No, I mean that parents teach their children mistaken beliefs, whether they are Christians, Muslims, etc.

First, I’m against the death penalty in general, but we’re not talking about the execution of a murderer, but about the execution of gay people. Would you not consider that killing gay people is murder?

Further, those people didn’t choose to be homosexual. You may argue that they chose to behave according to their feelings, which is a different matter.

I beg to differ. I cannot ignore the fact that male + female, in many cases, may result in reproduction. I don’t see any reason to believe that homosexuality is unnatural, and I have explained why, citing examples of homosexual intercourse from other species even; challenging the very idea of “unnatural”, that you have not defined, etc.

Your argument only proves the Bible, as interpreted by you, to be wrong.

If people will certainly engage in sin (everyone will), and there’s zero chance that they will not, it follows that they have been tempted beyond their ability to refrain.

For instance, to use a standard that a court might use: what would a reasonable person do?
Answer: they would sin.

People cannot be required to be heroes, as that would put an undue burden on them. But further, no one is not a sinner.


No. At most, if that were the “true” interpretation of the Bible (assuming there were one) that would be indisputable evidence that the Bible makes that claim.

Of course, since everyone is a sinner, that would be indisputable evidence that the Bible is wrong .

Before I go on, I have to say that you and seem to have radically different ways of assessing evidence.
Unfortunately, that would give me my interpretation of the Bible, but I’d like to know yours. If you do not wish to answer my questions, please state so. Otherwise, could you please respond?

Would you support a law that would criminalize homosexuality?
If so, what should the punishment be, in your view, any why?
If not, why not? Should “evil” not be destroyed?

djrafikie

I would support a law that criminalises homosexuality, and the punishement would be that you would NEVER be exposed to the "saving" influence of fundies.

All in favour........

Johnny Skeptic

If putting homosexuals to death is acceptable, why wouldn't putting adulterers to death be acceptable too? It is interesting to note that in the U.S., Baptists have a higher divorce rate than atheists do. Old Testament Jews killed some people simply becuase they believed in another religion. Would rhutchin and Berggy propose that we pass laws that impose the death penalty for adultery and believing in other religions? Rhutchin's buddy John Calvin believed in killing Christians who disagreed with his religious teachings.

Thanks to gross negligence by God, Christianity has been a mess ever since it was founded.

rhutchin

I guess you can deny God entry into your heaven and God can deny you entry into His heaven. Sounds like a good tradeoff.

rhutchin

I think it is. The sexually immoral will not enter heaven, be they adulterers or homosexuals or whomever.

rhutchin

How would that be a punishment? In your skewed way of thinking, wouldn't that be a reward? Unless you really meant it as a punishment (meaning that the reward would be to expose them to their need for salvation).

rhutchin