Do not insult the great and mighty Myuu. She will smite you for your wicked laughing.
All hail Myuu and her greatness. Myuu I forgive you. Margarita?
please provide evidence! BTW quoting the buybull is not evidence!
But it is OK for you people to quote passages from books as a form of evidencce? Who are you trying to kid?
I thought God did tell them it was wrong and all that. They didn't know right from wrong per se, but I think the idea is that they could follow orders.
I think it was meant as an allegory about the implication of failure of obedience.
Geoff
Creatures of free will would be a poor choice to create for a God that wants to emphasize obedience.
You are free, but if you don't do what I tell you, I will burn you in Hell forever is the message of a severely ill God.
He wants us to act like robots, but have the capacity not to.
And if you look at many Christians you can see how they try (and fail) to do this.
What an odd thing to try.
Creatures of free will would be a poor choice to create for a God that wants to emphasize obedience.
You are free, but if you don't do what I tell you, I will burn you in Hell forever is the message of a severely ill God.
He wants us to act like robots, but have the capacity not to.
And if you look at many Christians you can see how they try (and fail) to do this.
What an odd thing to try.
The hell thing will always baffle me. We are told to "take on the nature of God" by religion. The nature of God??? So we should be extremely hot tempered and instll our wrath at the first person to dissapoint us? We should torture people for eternity if they wrong us?
I'm not sure I want that nature.
I think it was meant as an allegory about the implication of failure of obedience.
I guess. I mean, it's "evil" people who go to Hell, no? Why would you reward people for being evil?
Sure, "it's just a story", but that doesn't answer the question, it just obliterates the bible into worthlessness.
Not specifically, no. People are threatened with hell for even doing unavoidable things like "looking at a woman in lust". jesus tells those people to chop their own eyes out to save themselves from that burning. Gay people are going to burn for being gay. Are they "evil"?
Many christians will say using heroin is a sin, (because you're not treating your body like a temple). If we use that example then clearly not brushing your teeth is also a sin for the same reason. Would you be comfortable burning in hell for eternity, (or worse - watching someone you love burning in hell for eternity), because you or they happen to have a poor sense of personal hygiene? Of course I would question what people did before the invention of toothpaste.. The response would probably come in the form of them not eating bad food like we do, so now perhaps we should amend the statement to say that "eating cake is a sin". Would you like to burn in hell for consuming too much sugar? Is that "evil"?
Unless god provides us with a complete list of what is a sin, (relevant to today), then we can never be sure and will never know when we're under threat of fire. Your future relies entirely upon the whim of a being that annihilated all of man and animal kind during one of his bad moods, plagued and killed thousands of people for daring to ask for food, etc etc.
How's that?
So I'd invoke reasonability there. And again I don't think that message was meant to be literal
(Actually, does it say gay people are going to the eternal cook-off?)
I think you could have some kind a rational rule starting with "don't kill people" and go from there, which is my impression of reasonable Christianity.
Meh, I think you could cook the NT down to the Golden Rule
I guess. I mean, it's "evil" people who go to Hell, no? Why would you reward people for being evil?
That depends on who you're talking to. Dismissing something as "just a story" wont suffice from or for someone that believes the bible is the inspired word of god - and that is where the debate would lie. If they were to dismiss a part of that word of god as "just a story" on the basis that they cannot adequately challenge the idiocy presented therein, then the whole bible can be seen in the same light and treated as such.
See my point? The "inspired word of god" turns into a farce, (not for those that do not believe the bible to be the inspired word of a god which I'm good with). However, if these people were right in their assumption that the bible is the word of god then dismissing everything that is clearly problematic leaves us with very little word of god left. It is generally the case that even the hardcore "word of god" folk will pick and mix. Anything they cannot refute or debate becomes "not literal" and that diminishes god's word to worthlessness.
The OT god clearly expresses his opinion on homosexuality. The NT god, (which some people would argue is the exact same god), states that all the old laws must be obeyed, (not one dot or stroke and those that don't obey them yada yada), and gives specifics concerning those that don't obey. Technically, yes.. in one straight sentence, no.
Insufficient. Million Dollar Baby.. Clint kills the boxing woman.. Was it an "evil" or hell-worthy act? "'Do not kill' is too broad, too sweeping. It includes the butterfly that can't and the tiger that can't help it" (Twain). Put basically, it's saying such a command does not take into account every person and scenario.
This woman that wants to die now in England because she has some rare disease thing that causes her abject pain and misery would be a good example. If someone had the right to end her life, (which is killing), would it be an evil act or a compassionate act? So now invariably we should perhaps amend the law to state that "no killing unless the other person wants you to". I suppose then we could example the German guy that wanted to eat someone and managed to find a guy that wanted to be eaten. Because the man wanted to be eaten was it ok to kill and eat him or was there simply something wrong with the man that should have been dealt with in a more appropriate manner?
The golden rule being?