Animal Sacrifices in the Bible?
- Thread starter SetiAlpha6
- Start date
It makes sense because I believe there is something deeper to this human body. I believe every person has a soul and their soul is evident from their personality, thoughts, and feelings. Yes I take note to similarities between us and animals but i can find similarities between someone and Jupiter. I believe God created this world and the universe. I believe that He created us different from animals. Notice how we live compared to animals. Again some similarities but it does not mean that we are the same. I didn't say this at first because I figured it was evident, but I believe because the Bible says so, and if I didn't my whole system of belief falls down, however I don't believe just to make everything else make sense, but because it makes sense to me. I hope I have answered your questions to your expectations. Thank you for caring so much that makes me feel special. This is fun! Ask more! Please!
Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><
Warrior61,
The same could be said for all animals, don't you think?
Personality, thought, feelings, and intelligence?
A tiger lives differently from a horse, yet we regard both as animals.
What makes us different?
Where does it say that only humans have souls?
I'm still wondering why you believe only humans have souls.
No problem.
Jan.
The same could be said for all animals, don't you think?
Personality, thought, feelings, and intelligence?
A tiger lives differently from a horse, yet we regard both as animals.
What makes us different?
Where does it say that only humans have souls?
I'm still wondering why you believe only humans have souls.
No problem.
Jan.
Our we debating how it makes sense to me or to you? You know what I would say to that.
No. Using the bathroom. Breathing oxygen. Eating. LoL did you just say intelligence? Are you serious?
Are you telling me it is ok for me to walk around naked?
The whole soul thing.
Genesis 1:26 and 27
Ok. Congratulations. I am still wondering what I have to say. You asked how it makes sense to me and I told you. I answered your question. Your idea is for me to say all this stuff so you can come in and argue. Present your stuff if you want to debate about it. I mean granted I have a feeling that this is what me and snakelord are about to get into. The point is you can not disprove a soul. I can not prove it scientifically, and truthfully see no need to. Honestly I do not mind answering your questions or debating. I am in the midst of looking up stuff now. If you do want to debate do not respond with just small sentences which just sound like immediate responses.
No problem.
Jan.
I assume that it isn't a problem.
Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><
Warrior61,
Understood.
Animals pee and poo just like we do, they keep themselves clean in relation to their needs, just like we do. Some don't, (pigs maybe), but then, some humans don't.
If by "breathing oxygen" you mean 'breath', then all animals breathe according to their environment.
Eating is a necessity for survival... no food, we die, animals included. Do they cook gourmet meals? No. Are gourmet meals necessary for life? No.
As for "intelligence", here is a definition from encarta dictionary;
Intelligence, that facet of mind underlying our capacity to think, to solve novel problems, to reason and to have knowledge of the world. In...
The definition refers to humans, but the same can be said of animals, in varying degrees, albeit localised to their particular social environment.
I don't think its ok but there are some humans who do. Does that make them not human?
But that doesn't really explain anything.
I don't see how you come to that conclusion based on those verses.
That goes without saying, given that we are in a discussion forum.
You stated "animals have no soul" and I was curious as to why you would think that. Your reasoning so far has provided very little in the form of reason.
I have, I asked you why animals do not have souls, so prestenting my "stuff", as you call it, is not relevant at this point.
No, but we can come to an understanding of a definition of the soul, which could be at least one reason why we are 'human'.
I think you're right though, there is no need to seek scientific proof of a soul.
You'd best put your effort in debating SnakeLord, cause you're gonna need it.
Jan.
Understood.
Animals pee and poo just like we do, they keep themselves clean in relation to their needs, just like we do. Some don't, (pigs maybe), but then, some humans don't.
If by "breathing oxygen" you mean 'breath', then all animals breathe according to their environment.
Eating is a necessity for survival... no food, we die, animals included. Do they cook gourmet meals? No. Are gourmet meals necessary for life? No.
As for "intelligence", here is a definition from encarta dictionary;
Intelligence, that facet of mind underlying our capacity to think, to solve novel problems, to reason and to have knowledge of the world. In...
The definition refers to humans, but the same can be said of animals, in varying degrees, albeit localised to their particular social environment.
I don't think its ok but there are some humans who do. Does that make them not human?
But that doesn't really explain anything.
I don't see how you come to that conclusion based on those verses.
That goes without saying, given that we are in a discussion forum.
You stated "animals have no soul" and I was curious as to why you would think that. Your reasoning so far has provided very little in the form of reason.
I have, I asked you why animals do not have souls, so prestenting my "stuff", as you call it, is not relevant at this point.
No, but we can come to an understanding of a definition of the soul, which could be at least one reason why we are 'human'.
I think you're right though, there is no need to seek scientific proof of a soul.
You'd best put your effort in debating SnakeLord, cause you're gonna need it.
Jan.
Hi again I've kinda been busy, (making snowmen with my eldest if nothing else - yes, an 8ft snowman).
To start I must say that I find it a tad strange that you would say such a thing. Surely, given your earlier claims, the answer must be yes. I arrive at this conclusion based upon the fact that you stated that animals do not have souls - and thus if you believe that, clearly a body can survive without a soul.
So as a question: What function exactly does the soul provide? You can't say the soul gives us morals or self-awareness, (good/evil & realisation that we were naked, [a major separation between us and animals]), because those things were given to us by a talking snake's deception against god. In saying you would have to claim that Adam and Eve were originally without a soul or that what the snake did was actually of huge benefit to mankind and thank him for it.
However, please do let me know the souls function.
Why is it such an issue that a human acts like a human? It is an inevitability that man will sin, (because we have been created that way and because apparently since the 'fall' we are all born sinners.. There's no escaping that fact). Why on earth does it bother god all that much?
Further to which I would always express concern to a being that is highly emotional and quick to kill/damn etc because of those emotions. As the bible shows, god is worse than most humans - jealousy, anger, wrath, etc etc..
All these things we would regard as the lowest, the worst of human emotions, and yet for some reason we like it when god has those very same emotions?
So we know god can get angry, but we also know that when he's angry he'll kill himself because he loves us and therefore wont use that anger upon us - but himself. Is that not a free ticket to do bad?
In the context of animal sacrifice, I wouldn't say any human in history has had a need to. The only reason he has done so because he was ordered to. If there was no order, there would be no need.
Again, god has sinned - more than most, you just let him off for doing so. Killing is a sin.. He has done more of that than anyone else.
As for not being able to die.. The sacrifice of himself therefore was a fake.
You have been handed down a shoddily written book - so as not to have to gain the knowledge for yourself, but so you can read what god has demanded from you. The only difference between that and a click of the fingers is that with the fingers you'll probably find a few billion less needless deaths. The book on the other hand is so badly written that nobody can agree on anything it says. Wars have been fought, lives have been lost, and millennia later people still argue and debate it. What harm do you perceive from being told? Maybe Moses would have used the same excuse if god didn't give him the ten commandments.. "Well boys, god wants us to figure it out by ourselves.. I don't see nothing wrong with stealing as long nobody knows about it"..
Clearly these people were led. god came down, sat on a mountain and instructed his people. We don't get that, god has vanished into a hole and we're left to decipher his mess. Can I ask, why the departure?
That would still stand. I would know he exists etc etc, but would decide to not love the being on the basis that I care a little too much about humans. Any being in the universe that has made it a lifes goal to annihilate them never sits well in my book.
My son was 6 months old when he died. What did he do wrong?
So could Saddam. The only difference here is your god has slightly more power. That does not justify the action.
They do. Hours and hours and hours. Psych eval, questioning yada yada yada. I've never been one for the electric chair myself.
That does not imply a soul. If you know anything about first aid you'll know that humans do the same to other humans in certain situations. They "breathe life into them", (along with a whack on the chest). You would surely not claim that humans are re-breathing the soul back into a person would you?
Such as?
Such as?
That is dependant upon certain factors.. If you were to explain what exactly the function of a soul was, science could show you what actually performs those functions thus removing any worth a soul might have had.
There was a case of an elephant digging a hole for water during a drought and letting all the other animals drink first - animals that until that moment would have eaten each other without hesitation. It was never taught to do that.
I said from a human definition we're all animals - including jesus. We're not "equal" given that we all have different abilities. I cannot, no matter how hard I try, swing through trees. When it comes to tree swinging the monkey has got me beat hands down. That's not equal, he is clearly superior. It's all about perspective, and yet you define yourself as better by merely looking at what you can do and claiming it superior without stating why your abilities are superior.
The same way a baby decides to stick it's fingers in a plug socket.
See lower down... She wasn't told anything. The only being to tell her what to do or not to do was the snake.
"Man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil".
Before that time, any decision made is one without knowing good and evil and therefore an informed and educated decision cannot be made. Is god good or evil? Without knowledge of what's good and evil how could Adam and Eve ever make the distinction? You call the snake evil because you have that knowledge. They did not.
Where is the good in obedience, (when you don't know what good is)? It's inconsequential whether you obey or not.
Eve didn't even exist when the command was given. god tells Adam not to eat the fruit in Gen 2:16, Eve is created in Gen 2:22. This is why she actually asks the snake: "did god say 'you must not eat from any tree in the garden?"
You see, she didn't even know the actual command.. she thought it meant anything. It is the snake that repeats what god says but then claims god as being wrong.
Now, without any knowledge of good or evil there is absolutely no reason not to listen to the snake. You can clearly see that god hadn't said anything to her, but that via Adam had been given the details. Now those details were false, so either Adam didn't understand god properly in the first place or Eve forgot what the command actually was somewhere along the lines. She asks the only other talking being for clarification... At this point we ask ourselves why, in the name of Zeus' butthole, there's a talking snake sitting in the garden with a penchant to deceive sitting in front of a tree that a god does not want you to eat from. That in itself is a longer discussion so for now we'll forget all of that and just pretend it isn't as stupid as it actually is.
So anyway, Eve asks the snake for clarification. The snake clarifies it in his own deceiving way. She has no reason not to listen, (not knowing good or evil), and so eats.
She is clearly absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing.
If god really didnt want them to eat it there would be no talking snake and no tree of knowledge of good and evil. The only reasonable response is that god did want all of this to take place - so he could curse mankind and then kill himself so mankind would be fooled into believing he did them a favour.
Not really, no.
Why? I still don't get this.
In your view, ergo: opinion. There lies the majority of the problem. For millennia we've argued for either side, and many others, and only because we're left with 100% opinion, 0% truth. What happened to the old days? Why can god not come down now and sit on a mountain, say "here I am" and done with it? of course that would lead me to some worry.. We have already seen that god discriminates, (i.e protected one specific bunch of people [His people] while annihilating another). I don't like beings that discriminate while having such power.
Absolutely. When a beings main priority is for you to "fear" it, it can never be a good thing. It means it's about to abuse its power at the behest of those below it.
If there was any respect involved there would be no fear whatsoever.
Such as?
It saved us from being sent to burn by that very same being? It's like that slave master I told you about.. he said if people kissed his ass on a daily basis he wouldn't whip them to death. Some people could consider a life of ass kissing as a benefit.. It isn't.
It's actually one of my favourite parts of the bible. I cannot help but laugh my socks off.. This god must be doing something seriously wrong. Moses vanishes for a brief time to talk business and in the meantime these jews have forgotten all about this god and have started worshipping, (of all things), a grass chewing, fat ass animal that goes moo. No wonder god's so pissed.. He cannot compete with an animal, a lowly, heavy but stupid, stinking fly infested animal.. oh, and some shiny metal.
What's wrong with the guy? Why would a third of all his angels rebel? Why would the very first people he made go against him in preference of listening to a talking snake? Why would all of mankind go against his wishes and commands to such a degree whereby he would have to kill every single last one of them? Why would people, when he's sitting just up a nearby hill, decide that their time is better spent worshipping a pile of metal that looks like a cow? Why? Who here should we question, the humans or the god that made those humans/angels and yet has absolutely no control and gets given no respect? No wonder he killed himself.
I tend not to say "proof", that's for mathematics and alcohol. There is certainly evidence to be gathered, and while for many that is certainly via actions, I barely even notice them. At first certainly.. that was the stage of evidence gathering. The evidence at the time was so clearly overwhelming that since then I just assume things will continue in the same trend. If they don't, there goes my assumption. I have no qualms with being wrong, in fact I only trust people that know they can be wrong.. Which is why I generally dislike and distrust theists.
Let it be said I am not questioning your life. Believe whatever you want to. If you believe in leprechauns you have my best wishes.. That of course would not stop me from questioning those beliefs etc. It is made all the more pertinent with religion simply because it sticks it's nose into every single orifice and refuses to move. I cannot send my daughter to school without some jerkwad forcing their crapola on her. I cannot go a week without some asshole knocking on my door and shoving a bible in my face telling me if I do not believe as them then I'm going to burn, and I'm terrible, and I'm a disgrace to humans yada yada yada. That is what makes me discuss the issue, that is what makes me disrespect everything religion stands for. If I was left alone, you would be too. (Take note that I am not specifically talking about 'you', just in general).
Such as?
Actual knowledge = actually knowing something.. "Biblical knowledge" = assumption that people several thousand years ago knew what they were talking about.
It's a question I often ask.. You remember the ten plagues right? When the water turned red.. Answer me this: Would the people of thousands of years ago have been able to diagnose pfisteria? Do you even know what pfisteria is, (and that's in 2007)? In saying, what value is there in a belief that the biblical writers are even close to being correct about anything? You will happily ascribe the water turning red as being a godly given plague and yet wouldn't even give a scientific explanation from a position of knowledge 10 seconds thought.
I'll go with that for now. However we must also look at the reverse side of that. The times I suppose when you argue with your girlfriend and mother. From a biblical perspective the analogy would result in you beating the living shit out of your girlfriend during an argument and blowing up your mothers house because she wronged you somehow.
And on what basis do you "believe"? But no, you couldn't say you had knowlegde, just a bunch of claims that you've accepted as truth for some reason I'd like to find out right now. Why do you just believe what you are told, (while not doing the same for millions of other beliefs)?
Again, if you didn't need it, it would be entirely inconsequential whether you got it or not.
And there you were thinking you were better than animals. Years and years of human progression and the best you can say is you'd punch the dude in his nose? I'm not specifically pacifist, but surely there are "better", and less animal-like methods one could employ? No, I wouldn't suggest listening to jesus and turning the other cheek so they can throw poo at that too.. I find the notion a tad too gay for my liking, but there has to be something better than fisticuffs.
No humans eat the fox. That is killing for the mere sake of killing - that is where we generally differ from other animals: Humans kill for fun. The fact remains that people have their abilities - which generally are lower than the ability of animals. One chimp could pull a man to pieces with ease. Humans have managed because we, like chimps, can use tools and are a communal species. In a group, with tools, man is a formidable opponent to many animals. As it stands though, "a man" could not compete with the majority of animals - even those so small we cannot see them.
Not at all, it's merely a fight for self survival. A crocodile would take me down without question - in order to survive. I'd do the same in return. It doesn't make ones existence more deserving than the other, it's a necessity for both of us. There's a winner, there's a loser.
And so, by gaining that knowledge the moment they did evil, how could you hold them liable? They did not know what evil was until they did it. As I have written in my bible re-write:
Adam: "Wait Eve! The apple is evil!!"
Eve: "What does evil mean?"
Adam: "Fucked if I know"
The only way to find out the answer is to eat. The second you've done so.. "doh!"
Again, Eve was not told. She got her answer from the snake - who told her it was fine and that god was lying. Without the ability to discern good from evil there's no reason she wouldn't listen to the snake.
Not if they don't understand the order. Disobedience and obedience mean sweet bugger all if you cannot distinguish which of those is a good or bad thing. "You disobeyed me"... so what? What difference would that make to a being with no knowledge of good or evil?
god told Adam what to do, not Eve. Eve got told what to do by the universes only talking snake. How he happened to be right there, right then is apparently of no value.
But clearly acknowledges that they had no understanding of good or evil until they'd eaten the fruit of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil", (which should be a giveaway). In fact, Eve didn't even have a name until well after the incident. What, I wonder, did god call her? Same as every other woman perhaps? "Oi you!"? (Gen 3:20). (Gen 3:22 is where god shows at that point man had knowledge of good and evil but not before).
As they clearly had no knowledge of good or evil, being told what not to do is utterly pointless.
Check it again. She asks the question from the snake. She thought god said they cannot eat anything. The snake corrects her mistake and adds his own little bit to it.
Eve didn't even have a name until after the whole incident and neither of them even realised their bits were on display. Like a baby, (or animal for that matter), they walked around with their naughties out for the world to see without even noticing that they were walking around with their naughties on display. They also had no understanding of good or evil. In context they are actually like babies, not adult humans. A baby has the ability to mimic what it's told - and, as I saw with my eldest when she was young, the ability to give names to objects. Her teddy was called "googoo" or something. While she could talk and mimic, she didn't understand that sticking fingers in plug sockets was a bad thing.
This is where you're wrong. Eve asks a question, she doesn't make a statement.
To start I must say that I find it a tad strange that you would say such a thing. Surely, given your earlier claims, the answer must be yes. I arrive at this conclusion based upon the fact that you stated that animals do not have souls - and thus if you believe that, clearly a body can survive without a soul.
So as a question: What function exactly does the soul provide? You can't say the soul gives us morals or self-awareness, (good/evil & realisation that we were naked, [a major separation between us and animals]), because those things were given to us by a talking snake's deception against god. In saying you would have to claim that Adam and Eve were originally without a soul or that what the snake did was actually of huge benefit to mankind and thank him for it.
However, please do let me know the souls function.
Why is it such an issue that a human acts like a human? It is an inevitability that man will sin, (because we have been created that way and because apparently since the 'fall' we are all born sinners.. There's no escaping that fact). Why on earth does it bother god all that much?
Further to which I would always express concern to a being that is highly emotional and quick to kill/damn etc because of those emotions. As the bible shows, god is worse than most humans - jealousy, anger, wrath, etc etc..
All these things we would regard as the lowest, the worst of human emotions, and yet for some reason we like it when god has those very same emotions?
So we know god can get angry, but we also know that when he's angry he'll kill himself because he loves us and therefore wont use that anger upon us - but himself. Is that not a free ticket to do bad?
In the context of animal sacrifice, I wouldn't say any human in history has had a need to. The only reason he has done so because he was ordered to. If there was no order, there would be no need.
Again, god has sinned - more than most, you just let him off for doing so. Killing is a sin.. He has done more of that than anyone else.
As for not being able to die.. The sacrifice of himself therefore was a fake.
You have been handed down a shoddily written book - so as not to have to gain the knowledge for yourself, but so you can read what god has demanded from you. The only difference between that and a click of the fingers is that with the fingers you'll probably find a few billion less needless deaths. The book on the other hand is so badly written that nobody can agree on anything it says. Wars have been fought, lives have been lost, and millennia later people still argue and debate it. What harm do you perceive from being told? Maybe Moses would have used the same excuse if god didn't give him the ten commandments.. "Well boys, god wants us to figure it out by ourselves.. I don't see nothing wrong with stealing as long nobody knows about it"..
Clearly these people were led. god came down, sat on a mountain and instructed his people. We don't get that, god has vanished into a hole and we're left to decipher his mess. Can I ask, why the departure?
That would still stand. I would know he exists etc etc, but would decide to not love the being on the basis that I care a little too much about humans. Any being in the universe that has made it a lifes goal to annihilate them never sits well in my book.
My son was 6 months old when he died. What did he do wrong?
So could Saddam. The only difference here is your god has slightly more power. That does not justify the action.
They do. Hours and hours and hours. Psych eval, questioning yada yada yada. I've never been one for the electric chair myself.
That does not imply a soul. If you know anything about first aid you'll know that humans do the same to other humans in certain situations. They "breathe life into them", (along with a whack on the chest). You would surely not claim that humans are re-breathing the soul back into a person would you?
Such as?
Such as?
That is dependant upon certain factors.. If you were to explain what exactly the function of a soul was, science could show you what actually performs those functions thus removing any worth a soul might have had.
There was a case of an elephant digging a hole for water during a drought and letting all the other animals drink first - animals that until that moment would have eaten each other without hesitation. It was never taught to do that.
I said from a human definition we're all animals - including jesus. We're not "equal" given that we all have different abilities. I cannot, no matter how hard I try, swing through trees. When it comes to tree swinging the monkey has got me beat hands down. That's not equal, he is clearly superior. It's all about perspective, and yet you define yourself as better by merely looking at what you can do and claiming it superior without stating why your abilities are superior.
The same way a baby decides to stick it's fingers in a plug socket.
See lower down... She wasn't told anything. The only being to tell her what to do or not to do was the snake.
"Man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil".
Before that time, any decision made is one without knowing good and evil and therefore an informed and educated decision cannot be made. Is god good or evil? Without knowledge of what's good and evil how could Adam and Eve ever make the distinction? You call the snake evil because you have that knowledge. They did not.
Where is the good in obedience, (when you don't know what good is)? It's inconsequential whether you obey or not.
Eve didn't even exist when the command was given. god tells Adam not to eat the fruit in Gen 2:16, Eve is created in Gen 2:22. This is why she actually asks the snake: "did god say 'you must not eat from any tree in the garden?"
You see, she didn't even know the actual command.. she thought it meant anything. It is the snake that repeats what god says but then claims god as being wrong.
Now, without any knowledge of good or evil there is absolutely no reason not to listen to the snake. You can clearly see that god hadn't said anything to her, but that via Adam had been given the details. Now those details were false, so either Adam didn't understand god properly in the first place or Eve forgot what the command actually was somewhere along the lines. She asks the only other talking being for clarification... At this point we ask ourselves why, in the name of Zeus' butthole, there's a talking snake sitting in the garden with a penchant to deceive sitting in front of a tree that a god does not want you to eat from. That in itself is a longer discussion so for now we'll forget all of that and just pretend it isn't as stupid as it actually is.
So anyway, Eve asks the snake for clarification. The snake clarifies it in his own deceiving way. She has no reason not to listen, (not knowing good or evil), and so eats.
She is clearly absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing.
If god really didnt want them to eat it there would be no talking snake and no tree of knowledge of good and evil. The only reasonable response is that god did want all of this to take place - so he could curse mankind and then kill himself so mankind would be fooled into believing he did them a favour.
Not really, no.
Why? I still don't get this.
In your view, ergo: opinion. There lies the majority of the problem. For millennia we've argued for either side, and many others, and only because we're left with 100% opinion, 0% truth. What happened to the old days? Why can god not come down now and sit on a mountain, say "here I am" and done with it? of course that would lead me to some worry.. We have already seen that god discriminates, (i.e protected one specific bunch of people [His people] while annihilating another). I don't like beings that discriminate while having such power.
Absolutely. When a beings main priority is for you to "fear" it, it can never be a good thing. It means it's about to abuse its power at the behest of those below it.
If there was any respect involved there would be no fear whatsoever.
Such as?
It saved us from being sent to burn by that very same being? It's like that slave master I told you about.. he said if people kissed his ass on a daily basis he wouldn't whip them to death. Some people could consider a life of ass kissing as a benefit.. It isn't.
It's actually one of my favourite parts of the bible. I cannot help but laugh my socks off.. This god must be doing something seriously wrong. Moses vanishes for a brief time to talk business and in the meantime these jews have forgotten all about this god and have started worshipping, (of all things), a grass chewing, fat ass animal that goes moo. No wonder god's so pissed.. He cannot compete with an animal, a lowly, heavy but stupid, stinking fly infested animal.. oh, and some shiny metal.
What's wrong with the guy? Why would a third of all his angels rebel? Why would the very first people he made go against him in preference of listening to a talking snake? Why would all of mankind go against his wishes and commands to such a degree whereby he would have to kill every single last one of them? Why would people, when he's sitting just up a nearby hill, decide that their time is better spent worshipping a pile of metal that looks like a cow? Why? Who here should we question, the humans or the god that made those humans/angels and yet has absolutely no control and gets given no respect? No wonder he killed himself.
I tend not to say "proof", that's for mathematics and alcohol. There is certainly evidence to be gathered, and while for many that is certainly via actions, I barely even notice them. At first certainly.. that was the stage of evidence gathering. The evidence at the time was so clearly overwhelming that since then I just assume things will continue in the same trend. If they don't, there goes my assumption. I have no qualms with being wrong, in fact I only trust people that know they can be wrong.. Which is why I generally dislike and distrust theists.
Let it be said I am not questioning your life. Believe whatever you want to. If you believe in leprechauns you have my best wishes.. That of course would not stop me from questioning those beliefs etc. It is made all the more pertinent with religion simply because it sticks it's nose into every single orifice and refuses to move. I cannot send my daughter to school without some jerkwad forcing their crapola on her. I cannot go a week without some asshole knocking on my door and shoving a bible in my face telling me if I do not believe as them then I'm going to burn, and I'm terrible, and I'm a disgrace to humans yada yada yada. That is what makes me discuss the issue, that is what makes me disrespect everything religion stands for. If I was left alone, you would be too. (Take note that I am not specifically talking about 'you', just in general).
Such as?
Actual knowledge = actually knowing something.. "Biblical knowledge" = assumption that people several thousand years ago knew what they were talking about.
It's a question I often ask.. You remember the ten plagues right? When the water turned red.. Answer me this: Would the people of thousands of years ago have been able to diagnose pfisteria? Do you even know what pfisteria is, (and that's in 2007)? In saying, what value is there in a belief that the biblical writers are even close to being correct about anything? You will happily ascribe the water turning red as being a godly given plague and yet wouldn't even give a scientific explanation from a position of knowledge 10 seconds thought.
I'll go with that for now. However we must also look at the reverse side of that. The times I suppose when you argue with your girlfriend and mother. From a biblical perspective the analogy would result in you beating the living shit out of your girlfriend during an argument and blowing up your mothers house because she wronged you somehow.
And on what basis do you "believe"? But no, you couldn't say you had knowlegde, just a bunch of claims that you've accepted as truth for some reason I'd like to find out right now. Why do you just believe what you are told, (while not doing the same for millions of other beliefs)?
Again, if you didn't need it, it would be entirely inconsequential whether you got it or not.
And there you were thinking you were better than animals. Years and years of human progression and the best you can say is you'd punch the dude in his nose? I'm not specifically pacifist, but surely there are "better", and less animal-like methods one could employ? No, I wouldn't suggest listening to jesus and turning the other cheek so they can throw poo at that too.. I find the notion a tad too gay for my liking, but there has to be something better than fisticuffs.
No humans eat the fox. That is killing for the mere sake of killing - that is where we generally differ from other animals: Humans kill for fun. The fact remains that people have their abilities - which generally are lower than the ability of animals. One chimp could pull a man to pieces with ease. Humans have managed because we, like chimps, can use tools and are a communal species. In a group, with tools, man is a formidable opponent to many animals. As it stands though, "a man" could not compete with the majority of animals - even those so small we cannot see them.
Not at all, it's merely a fight for self survival. A crocodile would take me down without question - in order to survive. I'd do the same in return. It doesn't make ones existence more deserving than the other, it's a necessity for both of us. There's a winner, there's a loser.
And so, by gaining that knowledge the moment they did evil, how could you hold them liable? They did not know what evil was until they did it. As I have written in my bible re-write:
Adam: "Wait Eve! The apple is evil!!"
Eve: "What does evil mean?"
Adam: "Fucked if I know"
The only way to find out the answer is to eat. The second you've done so.. "doh!"
Again, Eve was not told. She got her answer from the snake - who told her it was fine and that god was lying. Without the ability to discern good from evil there's no reason she wouldn't listen to the snake.
Not if they don't understand the order. Disobedience and obedience mean sweet bugger all if you cannot distinguish which of those is a good or bad thing. "You disobeyed me"... so what? What difference would that make to a being with no knowledge of good or evil?
god told Adam what to do, not Eve. Eve got told what to do by the universes only talking snake. How he happened to be right there, right then is apparently of no value.
But clearly acknowledges that they had no understanding of good or evil until they'd eaten the fruit of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil", (which should be a giveaway). In fact, Eve didn't even have a name until well after the incident. What, I wonder, did god call her? Same as every other woman perhaps? "Oi you!"? (Gen 3:20). (Gen 3:22 is where god shows at that point man had knowledge of good and evil but not before).
As they clearly had no knowledge of good or evil, being told what not to do is utterly pointless.
Check it again. She asks the question from the snake. She thought god said they cannot eat anything. The snake corrects her mistake and adds his own little bit to it.
Eve didn't even have a name until after the whole incident and neither of them even realised their bits were on display. Like a baby, (or animal for that matter), they walked around with their naughties out for the world to see without even noticing that they were walking around with their naughties on display. They also had no understanding of good or evil. In context they are actually like babies, not adult humans. A baby has the ability to mimic what it's told - and, as I saw with my eldest when she was young, the ability to give names to objects. Her teddy was called "googoo" or something. While she could talk and mimic, she didn't understand that sticking fingers in plug sockets was a bad thing.
This is where you're wrong. Eve asks a question, she doesn't make a statement.
Last edited:
Not questioning any of that.
Level of intelligence with an emphasis on morality.
I didn't say it didn't make them human, but notice you said "I don't think its ok." Why?
Lol didn't know I was explaining it to you. I answered your question. If you want more ask more.
Well here is another. Matthew 16:26
Reason? Again what makes sense to you or to me?
I told you and you do not seem satisfied. If you want more from me ask more.
Now you want a definition. I don't know what to say.
You'd best put your effort in debating SnakeLord, cause you're gonna need it.
Jan.
Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><
SnakeLord, have you ever thought about writing a book? You really should consider it!
*************
M*W: What a perspective!
*************
M*W: It makes me even want to go back and read Genesis!
*************
M*W: Even as an atheist, I have to admit I think everyone should go back and read Genesis.
*************
M*W: And... just following the verse where the snake told Eve the truth is when everybody should throw this piece of crap out the door!
That is crazy. An 8ft snowman. Thats impressive. The last time we had snow stick was about 3 years ago. Then we only got about 3 inches. Anyway out of curiousity where are you from? And what does 'bugger' mean? I understand it in context somewhat.
So here is where the discussion evolves. I can not say that a "soul" separates us from animals because scripture uses the same word. So great job on pointing out where I was wrong. I am still studying up on this thing and this is my conclusion. A soul is the actual life. So that didn't change when I said life and soul are the same. What separates us from animals would be in Genesis where we are created in the image of God. Giving us the ability of "Moral Choice" and allowing our soul to continue past this earthly life. Saying that the end of life on earth is the end of life on earth not the end of life. What separates us from the rest of God's creation would be that we are his special creation.
Notice how we differ on "the fall." You say it was the serpent's deception while I would say it was us making a bad choice. I am not pointing out the obvious for my own sake but just to point out some things that might help your understanding of my belief. You remove blame from Adam and Eve while I place them at the center of it. About it being a huge benefit. People do good lots of times with out recognizing it to be good. Knowledge of doing good or no knowledge doesn't change that it was good. You are right I can't say that. Again thank you for helping me understand this whole thing.
I went to studying and found out that from the KJV to the NIV soul changes to life, sometimes. The original Hebrew is nephesh and is also used for animals. So I would have to say I was wrong. Again since this is very unheard of here I will type it again. I WAS WRONG. This still doesn't change anything I have said though. The only thing I said about the soul concerning sacrifice is that Jesus didn't stop living at death. His soul continued past death on earth. There are two deaths: Spiritual and Physical. Physical is the end of life on earth. Spiritual death is separation from us and God. Either way we were created in the image of God making us everlasting. The soul's function I would have to say provides life, emotions, a mind(not a brain), and moral choice. There is probably more its just I wanted to say what I was sure of. I hope this clarifies.
Humans act like humans? We were created to obey willingly. Willingly meaning we would have had to have the ability to choose. Sinning is not acting human. It isn't inevitable, remember Jesus. In other words you don't have to sin to be human. It isn't a requirement to be human. It bothers God the same way it bothers you when your children disobey.
Jealousy. He is jealous when we give our loyalty to someone/something else? That would be evidence of Love would it not? Jealousy is bad pending what you are jealous of and what it leads to. Anger? Anger is not a bad thing always. You said you lost a child. I am sure you were angry. No one can fault you for that or say that is wrong. The sin of anger depends on what you are angry about and what it can cause you to do. Wrath? If you go to war or if I go to war somebody is going to feel our wrath. Bad thing? No. Again it is how and why you use it.
We like it? I do not like God's wrath because it hurts and I am not a big fan of pain. That doesn't mean He is wrong. Notice you made a connection between us and God. Fingerprints left on creation? Evidence?
He sacrificed out of anger? No. It is a free ticket to do bad. Turn to Romans 6:1-4. Free ticket but doesn't mean we have to or should.
I see your point but if you look in Exodus Moses was given the bit on animal sacrifice and peace offerings on the mountain. Well before he can get down to tell them they are already giving animal sacrifices and peace offerings to a golden calf before being told about it. Again this strengthens my argument in saying it was done as an expression.
Killing is not a sin unless it is murder. Killing someone because they are trying to kill you and your family would not be a sin.
Not being able to die as in not exist. A physical death is different.
From the mountain? I say He is here with me now. What departure?
How does caring about humans make it where you can't love God?
Natural consequences of sin. We brought it in the world and it causes problems. Aside from that I am truly sorry for you loss. I can't imagine or understand how you feel, and hope I never have to.
Saddam murdered. You know the difference. God has a right to.
Not a big fan of letting them back out into society either I bet. Notice there still is a punishment, a crappy one, but still a punishment. Let's see what the message is. Kill someone or many and we will just talk to you, feed you and let you live, but mostly just talk.
No giving them life would be the evidence of a soul. The ability to breathe is not being debated. People are put on respirators it doesn't make them less human. Scripture is saying Life.
LOL I realize now I did a horrible job. The difference being Moral choice, a huge difference in intelligence, and the whole everlasting thing.
Moral freedom.
That is true. I listed a few up top.
This argues my point. Instinct. You can't prove that that was a moral choice he made. He could have been scared.
Image of God.
Does the baby know the consequences of doing that? Notice how the baby can still make a decision without knowledge of good and evil. I am saying they had a step further. They knew what to do an what not to do.
Genesis 3:1-5 NIV
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals th Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"
Satan asks. Eve responds.
2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "
If she wasn't told then how does she know? Pshycic?
Satan then proceeds to decieve.
4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 " For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,...
Then you finish it.
That is not in question. The debate is is knowlege of good and evil required to make a moral decision. I say no just the abilty to choose and an understanding of disobedience and obedience.
Informed and educated? They were told don't do this or you will die. They understood the consequence. They chose to disobey despite what they were told. Now since they had done evil they understood it and how its contrasts with good. They understood that obedience was good and disobedience was evil.
You know what obedience is though. The good in obedience was to please God.
She knew or couldn't have responded to satan.
They both do.
You got that backwards.
God wanted a creature to love Him because they wanted to.
So you can be God and create someone wiser? That doesn't make any sense.
He is without fault. If a government says stealing is wrong and the punishment is time in prison whose job is it to carryout the punishment?
Discrimination? God knows who will listen and who want. If God did come down critical minds will still say its a magic trick. He raised people from the dead right in front of critics minds and they still didn't believe.
I love my daddy and fear him. His love for me is to protect me. So if I fear him I will think twice before I disobey. And despite that fear I still end up doing it.
How does respect cross out fear?
The whole Salvation thing.
Actually He did all of the work we just believe.
I talked about why I brought that up I just want to point out you said "worshipping." If you would be so kind as to share with the class what that worshipping included them doing?
What about the other 2/3rds? If you can come up with another solution on how to create a angel/human to love willingly without 'free will' then please share.
Do you distrust and dislike me? LOL Because I think this is twice where I have said I was wrong. Be honest here you know your wife loves you, how?
Let it be said I am not questioning your life. Believe whatever you want to. If you believe in leprechauns you have my best wishes.. That of course would not stop me from questioning those beliefs etc. It is made all the more pertinent with religion simply because it sticks it's nose into every single orifice and refuses to move. I cannot send my daughter to school without some jerkwad forcing their crapola on her. I cannot go a week without some asshole knocking on my door and shoving a bible in my face telling me if I do not believe as them then I'm going to burn, and I'm terrible, and I'm a disgrace to humans yada yada yada. That is what makes me discuss the issue, that is what makes me disrespect everything religion stands for. If I was left alone, you would be too. (Take note that I am not specifically talking about 'you', just in general).
LOL Here comes the third one. I was wrong. I was wrong. I also set myself apart from you saying "theists" and "Christians" with the hope that you will see a difference because I know you put up with some crazy people, I do also. Is that understandable. I mean I am sure you don't like it when some one says an atheist is stupid.
One was a king. Not all were sheperds, which you know that you have read the Bible.
Time changes knowlege?
The whole nile though? Really.
I do not get what you are saying.
History proves the Bible's accuracy. It isn't that farfetched. Believing reports is not nonsense. Also science goes hand in hand with scripture.
I am obviously confused. You did say:
Your last sentece points out that you need love right?
And there you were thinking you were better than animals. Years and years of human progression and the best you can say is you'd punch the dude in his nose? I'm not specifically pacifist, but surely there are "better", and less animal-like methods one could employ? No, I wouldn't suggest listening to jesus and turning the other cheek so they can throw poo at that too.. I find the notion a tad too gay for my liking, but there has to be something better than fisticuffs.
LoL. You assume he would have a chance to throw a punch. No I probably would brawl right off the bat unless it was done after I said stop.
No humans eat the fox. That is killing for the mere sake of killing - that is where we generally differ from other animals: Humans kill for fun. The fact remains that people have their abilities - which generally are lower than the ability of animals. One chimp could pull a man to pieces with ease. Humans have managed because we, like chimps, can use tools and are a communal species. In a group, with tools, man is a formidable opponent to many animals. As it stands though, "a man" could not compete with the majority of animals - even those so small we cannot see them.
Animals kill and don't eat, I do not know if it is for pleasure. I get your point, but I do not see how it pertains to my question.
A fight for what? Self survival. Where the winner deserves what? Ah, yes, the right to live because one died. You wouldn't end an animals life if you did not see you as more deserving to live. Please explain where I am wrong. So if a crocodile eats your wife what would be your reaction?
Again, Eve was not told. She got her answer from the snake - who told her it was fine and that god was lying. Without the ability to discern good from evil there's no reason she wouldn't listen to the snake.
Then how in God's green earth did she say what she said?
They obeyed God because they loved Him. There was purpose behind there actions, do realize there was intent.
Please read it again.
Did they or didn't they have knowledge of obedience and disobedience?
How?
Did. Your turn to re read. This time I suggest do it without the influence of alcohol.
Mimmic and actual understanding is different and you know that.
No question mark.
Sorry for waiting a day, this mono stuff is crazy. Anyway have fun in the snow and respond to this when you get a chance.
Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><
Jeremiah 7:22-23
22"For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
23"But this is what I commanded them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you will be My people; and you will walk in all the way which I command you, that it may be well with you.'
This is God saying. This is the point. That you obey me. What did I say the sacrifices were. Out of love and obedience. I don't see the issue here. I realize how we take different things but does it make sense the way I explain it?
Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><
To Jan,
I would like to thank you in helping me understand this whole soul thing. I have changed my mind, mostly because I have seen where it doesn't hold up. If you read my post to Snakelord you will see. If you have a question though please do not hesitate to ask. I hope I didn't seem rude because that wasn't my intention. Anyway I am sure you will read this. In fact I wonder who all is reading mine and Snakelords little debate. LOL There is probably like you and SetiAlpha6. Anywat enjoy. Again any questions just ask.
Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><
I would like to thank you in helping me understand this whole soul thing. I have changed my mind, mostly because I have seen where it doesn't hold up. If you read my post to Snakelord you will see. If you have a question though please do not hesitate to ask. I hope I didn't seem rude because that wasn't my intention. Anyway I am sure you will read this. In fact I wonder who all is reading mine and Snakelords little debate. LOL There is probably like you and SetiAlpha6. Anywat enjoy. Again any questions just ask.
Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><
I see that you are a person of some character. But, it is possible that you might be changing the clear message of the scriptures into what you desire them to be, out of fear.
The text clearly says that God did not do "something"! "Something" that they think He did do. And then it contrasts that "something" with the something that He actually did do. Without adding to the "Word of God", which would in itself be an offense to God, what is the "something" that God did not do according to Jeremiah 7:22? Can you please just tell me the truth?
Jeremiah 7:22
22"For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Here is what it says to my brain: For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
The thoughts that stand out to me are these:
I did not speak concerning burnt offerings
I did not speak concerning sacrifices
I did not command concerning burnt offerings
I did not command concerning sacrifices
when I brought them out of Egypt
So my conclusion is that He did not do these four things at that time.
Where am I wrong?
We all know that sentences make sense in context. If you read whats around it should help you. The whole 21 verses before God is saying how they have missed the point. He comes in and addresses the point, the heart. He talks about all the bad things they were doing. He comes in and then says:
NIV
22 For when I brought your forefathers out of Egyptand spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, 23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, tht it may go well with you.
He is not saying He didn't command them, He is saying this was the main point. When you read His commands in the Old Testament it is usually followed by "I am the Lord" or even says "Obey me." In no way is He saying He didn't do something He did. Notice it says "concerning." Does this help? I hope I don't come off rude because that isn't my goal. Anyway please tell me if this doesn't explain it. Also I am working on a post for your other thread so don't think I am ignoring you.
Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><
1) England.
2) Well, technically to 'bugger' is to penetrate someones butt. I suppose the easiest way to view it is like "fuck all", but not quite as rude, (although bugger in itself can be). It's even used affectionately, (as dictionary.com examples: 'cute little bugger').
I'm curious then.. Clearly we did not create ourselves to do bad, to be nasty, or to get turned on by so many strange things from violence to squishing insects, ("crush freaks"). In saying, and given the claim that we were created in the image of god - would these have come as part of that 'image'?
We're still having difficulty establishing that Adam and Eve could even make a moral choice. While we certainly can, my "moral choice" does not make me do bad, but it would certainly make me refrain from worshipping a being that has killed humans. The strange thing is, my love for humans would then ultimately end up with me burning. It's seemingly a no win situation for me. I either abandon my own morals and worship a mass man murderer, or abide by those morals and burn. I would choose the latter, my morals are not for sale.
It would be both. From a biblical perspective the action of those two has seemingly damned many people, but that does not make them responsible for it - given that the 'choice' was not an educated one. For some reason I can't quite fathom, the snake was allowed to deceive two people that had no knowledge of good or evil into eating a fruit which would give them that knowledge. If they hadn't have eaten it they wouldn't have knowledge of good or evil and it would only be a matter of time before they made a wrong decision, (stuck their fingers in the plug socket as it were).
Certainly.
Ok.
Is that then to state that animals, (having no souls), don't have: a life, emotions, a mind or moral choice? While we could probably debate a couple of them, surely you'd have a problem trying to debate the first one? To my knowledge, animals are alive - although completely lacking a soul apparently.
Why? It's just me I guess but I fail to see the value. Why give life if you intend for nothing more than them to obey and worship you? It seems a tad.. self centered. An automaton is one thing, you can create a robot and get it to serve your every whim and desire.. But if you give that robot emotion, moral choice, self awareness, a "life" - then expecting it to worship and obey everything you say is really quite off-putting, imho - and to threaten annihilation if it doesn't comply seems something only someone without morals of their own would even consider.
1) To all intents and purposes, jesus was not human.
2) jesus is credited by christians as being the only being in the history of the universe to be completely sinless. As a result it does seem inevitable that the rest of us do and will sin, and is the 'norm' for humans.
3) The list of what is a sin is without doubt an extremely long one. It depends entirely on individual christians/theists but I have heard of everything being a sin from masturbation to watching Pokemon. If what constitutes a sin is modifiable by humans then we'll never get anywhere. The list established by god also is not suitable.. As an example:
- god clearly indicates that sleeping with a man of the same sex is a sin. He clearly indicates that sleeping with a family member is a sin. Nowhere does he actually indicate that sleeping with children is a sin, (many priests have made the most of this blunder).
- god clearly states that anyone who strikes a man and kills him must be stoned to death. Most of us actually completely ignore god on this matter. Our morals have seemingly, by fact of that, outgrown gods ideas of what is or isn't to be done. It can surely be quite scary wondering if we're all destined to hell because we didn't comply with gods laws, (of which this is just one of many).
So who has the say as to what we must consider as moral, what we must accept as immoral? god clearly cannot be the answer unless he updates his book or is due to damn mankind because we're not stoning prostitutes/naughty kids and murderers anymore. Humans also cannot have the final say on what is or isn't moral because then we don't know if god concurs.. Does god really care about Pokemon? It's unlikely, but surely something we need to know the answer to if we're ever to get closer to leading a life without sin?
I have given two examples: one where god has 'forgotten' to include a sin that he really should have, and the other an example of a god order than mankind no longer listen to - which would surely make us all sinners that little bit more?
I actually treat my daughter as an equal - as an adult. I leave the decisions up to her and find she has until now always done the right thing.
We've got to also understand that children are humans too and have feelings and emotions. Saying "no" doesn't specifically mean they're being 'bad', and it's probably worth finding out their feelings on the matter. Why would your child not want to go the dentist? To you when they say "no" they're being naughty - because they're disobeying.. But there is valid reason for them to disobey: Dentists suck.
If my daughter were to refuse to do something I would certainly spend my time trying to find out why as opposed to smacking her ass. When did god ever ask anyone to their face why they are disobeying instead of just turning them into a pillar of salt, drowning them, or sulphur bombing them?
Surely the decent thing would be for him to come sit in my living room and ask me why I don't believe in him, why I had sex before marriage, why I smoke etc etc.
Love and jealousy are linked together, but the latter is never helpful to anything, instead it is generally detrimental to that relationship. While I can and will accept that these things are all part of man, (and perhaps to agree with your argument we can find a time when they are not specifically bad things), I would still be called upon to question a "perfect" "all loving" being having these emotions.
Inflicting pain on a lesser being is always wrong.
Sorry, I don't know what you're asking. From a biblical perspective, god has emotions. That's not evidence of anything.
Aye. It would seem the idea is that gods, (of any kind), require the deaths of animals to appease them. In this instance they would be right.. their god did require animal deaths, the cow most likely did not.
It's debateable, but I would have to question the flood. Everything and everyone died. I absolutely refuse to accept that every single being, (which invariably included 1 month old children), being slaughtered is justifiable and not murder. What exactly were these 1 month olds doing? Smoking pot and raping women?
The "spirit" never died - as we agree. The "physical" death only lasted for a couple of days - and yet has apparently resolved all human problems, (as long as you're a believer). I just can't grasp why this 3 day death has solved anything.
So what about the several billion he's not with?
I already explained. Further to which, 'love' is a chemical reaction, little more.. I fail to see any valid reason that I would force myself into some version of 'love' for a being on the basis that it created the universe. I'll certainly say "thanks", but love? Maybe I'm different than most, I dunno.. but I don't see the creation of the universe as being anything remarkable for an omnipotent being and see no just cause to 'love' it for doing so. I don't 'love' the builders that made my house on the basis that they made my house.
I'm also put off a bit by the fact that cancer exists, flies exist - which puke on my food and make my kids ill, and I'm surprised that this being would go to the trouble of creating a catfish that is in the habit of swimming up the end of a persons penis and latching on. To me it seems pointless, what do I know?
Seriously, we have to look at both sides. This being that expects me to love it can certainly get a thanks for creating humans, but then surely falls down a notch for creating mosquitos and bladder worms, pubic lice and ticks? Male pattern baldness also sucks ass as does the need to trim my damn face hair and nails every week.. Can't he have included a 'stop' button for hair/nail growth when he made us? It's a complete bloody waste of my time.
See, I'll look at both sides.. For the former, imo, a thanks is sufficient - it doesn't lead me to "love".
Or of course we could look at Exodus where god states that:
"you are to give over to the LORD the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the LORD... This is why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.'"
Perhaps then he killed my son, (because my son apparently belongs to him).
However, my son did not sin. He was entirely sinless. Your argument has little value. Of course this is probably where it is claimed that it was due to my sin that he died, (god does indeed state several times that he punishes the kids for the sins of their parents etc). Perhaps then it wasn't my sins but my fathers sins, or my grandathers sins that led to the death of my child, (god says he'll do this). In either case my child was innocent. That is murder.
If I sinned whack me, if my father sinned whack him, if my grandfather sinned whack him. That's acceptable, the killing of an innocent is not.
You have not justified why god has a right to.
I'd be all for it if it was apparent that people could be rehabilitated. It isn't apparent and there's the problem. It is in some peoples nature to kill, like it is in a lions nature to kill. I wouldn't have the lion walking round the neighbourhood for the same reason that I wouldn't have the murderer doing the same.
From Twain's 'Thou shalt not kill':
He goes on to say:
Ok so in our scenario you have a person that isn't breathing. If you do not perform the action of breathing into them/pumping the chest etc, they will be permanently dead. What is the soul doing right now and how does breathing in to them help keep the soul in place? Why does the soul leave if you don't breathe into them?
Ok, I can't really debate the latter for now - if they or we live forever it is not evidenced and relies on the word of a book. I will for now accept that and move on. The other two are debateble, but I shall leave it for now.
Elephants are not really the 'get scared' type.
Out of interest, do humans have instinct and, if they are operating under instinct, are they then not guilty of a crime?
That would not make us superior if the god in question is a nincompoop. It would simply make us the image of a nincompoop.
You could tell that baby the consequences, but without him having knowledge of good or bad, of whether being electricuted is a bad thing or not, it's meaningless. The same applies to Adam and Eve. While told not to, they had no understanding of good or evil and thus have no valid reason to give a shit what they were told not to do.
Aye, my apologies. That's the bad side of drinking I guess.
The knowledge of good and evil is an asbolute must in order to make any moral decision. Obeying or disobeying come under the guise of moral decisions and, without knowledge of good or evil, obeying or disobeying is of no worth or relevance. Is obeying a good thing? (You know the answer to that, they didn't).
Is dying a good thing or a bad thing? How would they know without that knowledge? Why would they listen to an order given to them without knowledge of whether that order is a good one or not?
By eating the fruit they came to that understanding, yes. By then it is too late.
And have knowledge of good and evil and thus can distinguish that obeying is a good thing. Without knowledge of good or evil I wouldn't honestly give a shit either way.
And annihilates them, plagues them, curses them, firebombs them etc etc because they don't want to? What kind of a choice is that?
My wife was online ordering some tickets. She looked at me and said; "Do you want to come to the opera with me?" I replied that I didn't. She then took out a knife and stuck it in my chest. With my dying breath I said; "whydya f****** ask in the first place then?"
If you offer a choice, you have to accept the choice that is made. Getting all irate because you gave someone a choice and they chose something you didn't want them to is downright petty.
The argument comes down to definitions. You could say the word "god" would define such a being as being the wisest of all beings, but in actuality a god could be a complete blithering idiot and nothing like our human definition of what a god is or isn't.
I still disagree. How is he without fault?
There is then no valid reason not to do it. At the very least he would get many more recruits - those that are simply unsure as an example.
The notion is foreign to me.
In my opinion a life of blind acceptance is worse than a life of ass kissing.
I fail to see the purpose. I'm more intrigued by the biblical fact that these people gave up on their own god so easily in preference of a golden cow.
Be nice? Stop with the floods and plagues, stop with the curses and constant demands, accept people's choices without having to kill them for it.
Again, I assume she does.
I'm sure many are. However, I wouldn't like them knocking on my door to tell me that anymore than I like them knocking on my door to tell me I'm going to hell and I must accept what they say without question.
Knowledge changes over time, yes.
Pfiesteria is some serious shit.
However, let's argue it briefly from a biblical perspective..
Exodus 7:22 states that the Egyptian magicians managed to do exactly the same thing. These people, for a time, could actually perform the actions of god - which included turning all the water to blood. That's some serious talent right there is it not?
You'd rather accept that a bunch of Egyptian magicians could do such a thing while denying the plausibility of that which has been observed?
How? Let it be said that people have made such claims before and generally cite that; "the existence of jerusalem shows that god must exist" or some similar verbal hocum. They are not acceptable arguments.
How so?
Being a human, yeah.. most likely. What I was saying that is if there wasn't a "need", it would be inconsequential whether anyone loved you or not.
It's generally quite a rarity. Cats/dogs etc will often kill an animal and then rather play with it or show it to you than eat it, but in the wild it's not generally done for the mere sake of it.
Purely out of interest, I have never killed an animal - save for occasional accidental squashing of a snail or some such thing. When that happens I do feel incredibly bad for something else having to lose its life - whether you regard that life as worthless or not. So, I get into a tussle with a big old croc.. I have a genetic imperative to ensure self survival - I don't specifically think I'm better than the croc anymore than he thinks hes better than me, but when it comes down to the crunch I don't want to die and so would do what it takes at the behest of anything else. That would invariably include god if he came down for a tussle. It's not to say I would specifically consider myself better than him, but genetic imperative is a powerful thing. I would, out of instinct and nature, fight to ensure my survival. It doesn't really equate to me being more worthy of life.
I'd clearly be pissed. I have an emotional attachment to my wife. Killing my wife would invariably make me upset. It doesn't equate to her being more deserving of life.
There is nothing written in the bible to suggest they loved god. Furthermore, they actually disobeyed. Are you saying they did so because they didn't love him? Again though, the act of obeying or disobeying is of no relevance to a being that cannot comprehend whether obeying is a good thing or not.
You're having a problem grasping that whether they obey or disobey is of no relevance unless they can understand which of those two things is good and which is bad - which they couldn't. There was only one order given and that order was disobeyed. It wasn't because they hated god or thought he was being a jackass but because the order itself is utterly meaningless when you do not have the ability to discern the value in listening to it.
Aye, sue me.
Yeah, and they didn't have any knowledge of good or evil. god attests to that fact. It's simply undeniable, and as a consequence of that they would be in no position to know whether obeying was good or eating a fruit was bad. Being told not to is irrelevant if they cannot comprehend whether obeying that order is a good thing.
Regards,
Thank You, I will have to look into this further. Perhaps I am wrong! And I understand very well that you are busy.
Regards
God gave Adam and Eve one simple "don't do," which they didn't obey.
I suppose one could argue the any human would have disobeyed also, so in that sense, Adam and Eve's disobedience could be seen as a moot point anyway.
I suppose one could argue the any human would have disobeyed also, so in that sense, Adam and Eve's disobedience could be seen as a moot point anyway.
Snakelord,
I haven't forgotten or ignored. I started on a post and was almost finished however I messed up and lost it. I will make a post tomorrow. Anyways I aslo just noticed your thread on you school problem. How is that going?
Get to you soon there buddy.
Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><
I haven't forgotten or ignored. I started on a post and was almost finished however I messed up and lost it. I will make a post tomorrow. Anyways I aslo just noticed your thread on you school problem. How is that going?
Get to you soon there buddy.
Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><