JPD

*looks out of window and sees bird moving up and down on a thin branch in the wind*

*whistles*

*more whistling*

What would be an advance is you realising that your belief that homosexuals should be killed should not be made into law. But then it isn't really your belief is it? Its your belief about someone else's belief. When asked by the parents of the state beheaded/gased/electrocuted/poisoned/hanged gay man why you felt it was necessary you could tell them that its because certain humans have not yet developed their minds to be able to decide what they will not accept that is written from undetectable and unverifiable authority. What a great world you envision!

Johnny Skeptic

Choice is not involved. I am no more free to endorse God's numerous atrocities against mankind than you are to endorse lying. Why do you assume that lying is worse than the many atrocities that God has committed against mankind?

Because of rewards and risks, just as any mentally competent person would want to know that microorganisms exist, and which are helpful, and which harmful, if eternal rewards and punishments exist, any mentally competent person would want to know about it, in fact, much more so than they would want to know about the existence of microorganisms. If the God of the Bible exists, he could easily prove to skeptics that heaven and hell exist. It is a question of the extent that he is willing go to in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. Surely God has not done all that he can do in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. No decent person is able to accept a God like that.

Has God committed many atrocities against mankind or not? That is what we need to debate. For your information, a web definition for the word "atrocity" is "the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane". The Merriam-Websters's Online Dictionary defines the word "atrocious" as " 1 : extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel : BARBARIC

2 : APPALLING, HORRIFYING <the atrocious weapons of modern war>

3 a : utterly revolting : ABOMINABLE <atrocious working conditions> b : of very poor quality <atrocious handwriting>

Johnny: That pretty much describes God. Under our legal system, many of God's actions and allowances are punishable by life in prision or death. You would never endorse those actions and allowances if anyone other than God committed them. Why have you made an exception in God's case? You recently said "Let's look at the evidence". Well by all means, let's look at the evidence regarding God's character. What evidence do you have that injuring and killing people with hurricanes, and allowing them to die of starvation, are examples of good character? Only a mentally incompentent being would help people AND kill people and allow them to die of starvation.

rhutchin

OK. You are entitled to an opinion. If you could prove that opinion, it would resolve a lot of arguments.

Actually, what God has done is to tell people that they will live for all of eternity in either a place called heaven or a place outside heaven called hell. Because of Adam’s sin, a person is outside heaven and must take action to enter heaven. To get into heaven, a person must be without sin. Since all have sinned (not just homosexuals) all are in the same predicament and all face the same future. God has provided a means to enter heaven and escape an eternity in hell. Anyone can take advantage of God’s provision and enter heaven.

You may not like the system that exists, however, it is still the way things are. If you do not have any desire to enter heaven (and have to spend eternity with a God whom you despise) then you do not have to do so. If you don’t what to tell your children what is happening and would prefer to let them fend for themselves, you are free to do that also.

We both are advocates of punishment. I think we should use the Bible to determine those punishments. You have another way of determining punishments. Since you do not want to use the Bible to determine punishments, how would you determine what is to be punished and what punishment is to be levied? You would need a system of standards to do this, would you not? Basically, your system of standards would differ from that system of standards contained in the Bible.

You object to the Biblical system of punishment. I suspect you would object to the system of punishment used in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Islamic cultures, etc. It is entirely likely that the only system of standards that you would accept in its entirety is your own personal system of standards. It’s not just the Biblical standards that you oppose.

I have no problem with you having your own personal standards for determining punishments. If you were to become the absolute monarch, I would probably have problems living in a society governed by your standards. However, that’s life.

So each of us disagrees on each other’s standards and probably any other person’s standards. In the end, God’s standards determine who enters heaven. It would seem prudent to imitate those standards so as to prepare people to stand before God (whom you do not believe in but cannot prove to be nonexistent).

In the end, what makes your standards for punishment any better than mine (or anyone else’s)?

Point taken. Let me revise what I said to also specify that a blasphemer is one who openly opposes that which the Bible says and teaches others to do so also. Those who know what the Bible says and are content with that, ever though they do not believe it, are not blasphemers.

I agree. There seem to be as many interpretations of the Bible as there are people. Nonetheless, any interpretation must explain any and every verse in the Bible pertaining to the issue at hand. Different interpretations generally reflect a different set of verses used to achieve the interpretation. Sound Biblical exegesis is not the strength of most of those who make claims about that which the Bible says.

First, I want to modify your second statement to read--

If you could, would you vote in favor of a law that established the death penalty for those who taught others that the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality?

The answer to both questions, as modified, based solely on the OT is, Yes. In each case, the judicial procedures described in Matthew 18 would be followed.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul discusses a case where a person is involved in an activity that, under the OT, would be punishable by death. However, he tells the Corinthian believers to throw the person out of the church (shunning might be close to what would be done. The person would be treated as a leper and separated from society and left to fend for himself without help from society.) Consequently, I am not sure that the death penalty is required when both OT and NT are considered. What does not change is that homosexuality is sin.

Regardless, the law that God has established to determine who may enter heaven would deny gay people and those who taught that the Bible doesn’t condemn gay people entry into heaven because both of those activities are sin and punishable by eternal death (an eternal existence outside heaven).

Guess I missed it.

The Wager provides a logical process to determine the risk in choosing A over ~A. It is not any different than risk analysis performed today on a variety of issues. It suffers only from uncertainty, but any real risk analysis has uncertainty. If there was no uncertainty, risk would not be an issue.

However, the Wager provides common sense outcomes. If one alternative might result in death and another does not, then a person is more concerned about that outcome that might result in death. The Wager just provides a more formal logical methodology to reach that conclusion.

A person is born without an education. That’s life. That person decides how much education he will tolerate. That’s his choice. Similarly, a person is born outside heaven and must ask to enter. He does what is required to enter heaven or not. That’s his choice.

rhutchin

Yeah. What you should do is lie to everyone and tell them that there is not God to whom they are accountable and no such thing as sin. Then, when they die and find out different, you can laugh. What a funny world you envision! You can go to every funeral and laugh about how you lied to the poor sucker and how his butt is being fried because he believed you.

Johnny Skeptic

I am no more free to endorse God's numerous atrocities against mankind than you are to endorse lying. Why do you assume that lying is worse than the many atrocities that God has committed against mankind? Why do you believe that God created Hurricane Katrina and sent it to New Orleans? Do you know of any significant benefits that God or mankind derived from Hurricane Katrina? You would prevent hurricanes from going ashore in populated areas if you were able to, right? Are you aware that there is not any tangible benefit that you can ask God for and be assured that you will receive it? Why does God discriminate against amputees? Why did God order the death penalty for a Jew who killed a Jew, but not for a Jew who killed a slave? Why does God make people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11? Why does God punish people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5?

Because of rewards and risks, just as any mentally competent person would want to know that microorganisms exist, and which are helpful, and which harmful, if eternal rewards and punishments exist, any mentally competent person would want to know about it, in fact, much more so than they would want to know about the existence of microorganisms. If the God of the Bible exists, he could easily prove to skeptics that heaven and hell exist. It is a question of the extent that he is willing go to in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. God reveals himself to some people who he knows will reject him, and deliberately withholds information from some people who he knows will accept it if they are aware of it. That shows that God is not fair.

Has God committed many atrocities against mankind or not? That is what we need to debate. For your information, a web definition for the word "atrocity" is "the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane". The Merriam-Websters's Online Dictionary defines the word "atrocious" as " 1 : extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel : BARBARIC

2 : APPALLING, HORRIFYING <the atrocious weapons of modern war>

3 a : utterly revolting : ABOMINABLE <atrocious working conditions> b : of very poor quality <atrocious handwriting>

Johnny: That pretty much describes God. Under our legal system, many of God's actions and allowances are punishable by life in prision or death. You would never endorse those actions and allowances if anyone other than God committed them. Why have you made an exception in God's case? You recently said "Let's look at the evidence". Well by all means, let's look at the evidence regarding God's character. What evidence do you have that injuring and killing people with hurricanes, and allowing them to die of starvation, are examples of good character? Only a mentally incompetent being would help people AND kill people and allow them to die of starvation. James says that if a man refuses to provide food for a hungry person that he is vain, and his faith is dead. If feeding hungry people is a worthy goal for humans, it is also a worthy goal for God.

djrafikie

yeaaaah, riiiight.

Didn't you say that if someone didn't know and were not brought to god through no choice of their own that wouldn't happen?
Or have you changed you mind on this one as well?

djrafikie

Oh, and while I'm posting, i note you did not respond to john (the ministers) take on your...erm... interesting point of view. Is there any particular reason for that?

Or is the word of an ordained man of god not good enough for you?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Regarding homosexuality, do you mind telling us why you believe that the writers spoke for God and not for themselves? In addition, will you please tell us why you believe that the writings in the Bible that you use accurately represent the originals? Any religious writer can claim that his writings are inerrant, but that does not reasonably prove anything.

Berggy

When in regards to the Bible and Homosexuality - http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=142940

Looks like an interesting debate on the subject. Im still reading through it.

Angra Mainyu

Not really, since the proof will be rejected – actually, it has been rejected.

By “Biblegod” I meant the God you believe in; that is, the God of what you consider to be the literal interpretation of the Bible; the God of Adam and Eve, Creationism and the Flood.

Now, I may not target Creationism anymore in this thread (a moderator make that point before), but the fact is, Creationism has been disproved already – and Biblegod with it.
That’s only one example (though it suffices); there are several other reasons why oen can conclude that Biblegod isn’t real.

Besides, the sheer lack of evidence should be enough to rule it out, Creationism aside, just as we can rule out all the other Gods I mentioned – some of which actually cannot be disproved by showing counterevidence, but they can still be disproved simply because there’s zero evidence of their alleged existence; to be clear, because someone made them up.

In other words, if you claim that BG exists, the burden of proof is on you (or whoever makes the claim). I don’t need to show evidence of BG’s Ares’ and Santa’s nonexistence to prove that they don’t. It suffices to point to the fact that there’s no evidence on which a serious claim of existence could be based.

Btw, the “God of the Gaps” isn’t a good idea, either.


I don’t know how many times the following points have been made…

No one in their right mind desires to be tortured for eternity in Hell. Those who don’t believe in God, well, don’t believe that they have to believe to avoid Hell. If Biblegod existed, He would clearly be torturing people for eternity, even though these people would not know that they are under such thread.

Moreover, if BG existed, He’d be the creator of the Universe. As such, He’d be responsible for the rule stating that unbelievers should be tortured for eternity, and that they cannot enter Heaven (or even be destroyed) if they believe after they die, ask for mercy, etc. Clearly, BG would be the one responsible for the infinite torment of most of humanity.

Further, regardless of the actions of a person, nothing would excuse sending them to Hell. No human criminal in history (or in the future) could possible engage in atrocities comparable to those of God.

Granted, I would not like that system, if it existed. But it doesn’t exist. You claim that it does, but you provide no evidence.

Indeed.

I can adopt any system in place (for instance, the legislation of a country), or make up one of my own, or something in between (i.e., modify one such system, combine several, add my own input, etc.). But I don’t have to follow a system that I find horribly, just because someone else tells me so.

My own personal system also includes tolerance and acceptance of others with diverse moral views and who might prefer other systems, as well as democracy, all that of course up to a point (I wouldn’t accept a law calling for genocide).

I’m not sure what your point is, though.

No, my personal standards are against absolute monarchy. Thus, a society govern by my standards would never be an absolute monarchy.

Also, I don’t agree that “that’s life”. No one will be appointed absolute monarch any time soon.


Yes, I can.

If that’s not the case, then let’s consider that: what if the Goddess punishes those who adhere to the standards of Biblegod. You may not believe in the Goddess’s existence, but if I cannot prove Biblegod to be nonexistent (though I can :devil3: ), then by a similar reasoning, you cannot prove the Goddess to be nonexistent.

Thus, if it’s prudent to imitate BG’s standards (because allegedly one cannot disprove His existence), then it’s similarly prudent to reject BG’s standards, for the same reason.

Thus, it’s prudent to embrace BG’s standards, and to reject them. :devil3:

There does seem to be a problem. :devil1:


That aside, one of the conditions for entering Heaven, according to a certain branch of Christianity, is to believe in BG. But that’s beyond our ability to choose, so it’s impossible anyway.

In the end, each of us uses a set of standards to measure other standards. So, in the end, each of us would consider one’s own standards trivially better.

However, that doesn’t mean considerable agreement isn’t possible. If you felt free to make your own standards, would they really mimic those of BG’s?
In the case of homosexuality, for instance, would you support the killing (or punishing in the way you think BG wants) of gay people, if you didn’t think God is ordering you to do so? Or could we find some common ground and choose not to hurt them?


Ok, so, would you vote in favor or against a law that established the death penalty for gay people?

If your answer is “against”, then would you want to impose an alternative punishment? If so, which one?

That’d be the case if BG existed.

Actually, in that scenario, if BG existed, he’d be being fried because BG would be frying him. BG, as the creator of Hell, would be more responsible that people who tell them that there’s no Hell (most of whom would be unaware of it).

Furthermore, if God is perfect, then the system of punishments if perfect, then infinite torture is perfect justice, then it’d be (perfectly) good if the poor sucker were being fried for eternity. What would your objection be?