Good vs. Evil

[ghost7584]

How can God be good if God forces all raped virgin women to marry their rapists?


How can God win if Jesus died on the cross? It makes more sense if Satan died on the cross for tempting Eve to ate an apple. Satan succeeded in tempting Eve and necessitated the need for God to come down and shrink himself into a shape of a man and get tortured. That doesn't sound like he won. Also if there are 1 billion planets with intellegent lifeform, God has to die 1 billion times.


What exactly is Sin? In Romans Paul said if there is no law, there is no transgression.



An all knowing being doesn't need to test anything. He already knew. His omniscience renders the necessity of living a life on earth superfluous.

Answer this question: Did Jesus Christ come in the flesh?

Punishment for sin is death. Physical death and hell which is called the second death, suffering the pain of a roasting death forever. All men who can determine right from wrong, have at some time in their life done what they knew to be wrong (except for Jesus). God put some knowledge of right and wrong in every man's heart. So all men have sinned (except for Jesus), and they deserve the punishment. God, became a man in the form of Jesus the Messiah, and He defeated the devil by living a life without sin. This gave Jesus the right to die for the sins of others. He did not die for His own sins because He did not commit any. So, every man that believes in Jesus as his Lord and Saviour and tries to not sin, may now be forgiven of his sins, because Jesus paid for that man's sins by dying on the cross.
That is how God won over evil. He became a man and lived without any sin so that He could pay the price to purchase the forgiveness of other men's sins by dying on the cross, taking the punishment for them.

Sin is disobeying God's commandments. Paul does not say there is no law.
Paul even said that people that never heard about the Jewish law have God's law written on their hearts. Like God showed them something about right and wrong, and they sinned by doing what they knew to be wrong. That is why all people must believe in Jesus to have their sins forgiven.

Paul said this:
1 Corinthians 6:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul was calling all of those things sinful, and those that practice them will not go to heaven.

 

[Anomalous]

... I fail to see how humanity would not collectively contain "God's knowledge."
...
If there were a "God," there would be evidence for this "God." But, there's not....

Why only collectively ? and Isnt their faith enough ? if not why ?, what else does God require more than that ?

If a mere insignificant U can exist then why can GOD, If Universe can exist without a reason then whay cant ....

BTW : I hate God and his believers.

 

[Anomalous]

There are no separate disimbodied forces called "good" or "evil"....

Thank god at least U can distinguish between Good and Evil.

 

[water]

Medicine Woman,

M*W: If we were allegedly created as "God's image," I fail to see how humanity would not collectively contain "God's knowledge."

But do you ever get to see this collectively contained knowledge in its fullness?
No.

I could also say that "God doesn't have Humanity's Knowledge," but, of course, you would disagree. God didn't create humankind. It was humankind that created God!

Well, you like proving this ... prove that humankind created God!

If there were a "God," there would be evidence for this "God." But, there's not.

It all depends on 1. your definiton of God, 2. what you accept to be evidence of God.

There is no indication that there ever was a "God."

Prove that.

"God" is an illusion of humanity. "God" is a creation of humanity. "God" would not exist without the psychological needs of humanity.

And? Your point?

I say, "Who needs God?" Why believe in a fairy tale being?

Well, if you believe that God is a fairy tale being, then it is, by all means, better that people dont' believe in such a god.

The closest thing to "God" is humankind.

Closest? And it was almost, that the hunter hit the rabbit.

Worship each other and not a false being.

Beware of the consequences of such worship! Would you worship GW Bush? Your husband?

 

[water]

Anomalous,

BTW : I hate God and his believers.

Thank god at least U can distinguish between Good and Evil.

This is just too hilarious!
Anomalous, you've chosen the right screen name, indeed.

 

[MarcAC]

Ah. A bold faced Christian hero/liar I am sure you are aware of verse but pretend not to know it.

Take care with your language Joe.

[If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. ] (deut 22:28)

Exodus 22:16-17

"[16] If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. [17] If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins."​

Numbers 36:6

"This is what the LORD commands for Zelophehad's daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within the tribal clan of their father."​

It appears here, Joe, that the woman has all the power. The point is that the punk has violated the woman as she is no longer a virgin and in that culture no "self respecting bachelor" would want to marry her. She has the option of refusing to marry the bastard; just having the disgusting sicko pay a ton o' cash. If she does marry the vermin she has all the control, he is forced to stay married to her for the rest of his life and has no rights of divorce - even if she doesn't give him any - he's forced into submission just like her made the woman submit.

I only need to expose your lie. It don't want to waste my time and the time of everyone else in this forum by answering stupid questions.

I'd say the questions exactly mirror the initial statements Joe.

[14]For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.] (Romans 4:14-16)

You didn't finish Joe - Romans 4:16

"Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all."​

I'll quote a few more verses from Paul's letter to the Romans to give you the exact idea of what he was trying to get at. Your mistake here, Joe (quite common) is to look at one building block from the house and conclude what type of house it is. Isolate, (MIS)Interpret, Err - I think I'll start using I2E for short.

Romans 2

"[12] All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. [13] For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."​

Romans 3

"[19] Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. [20] Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin."​

Romans 5:13

"for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law."​

Within the context, it definitely does not mean without the law, transgressions would not be apparent. You can lie to yourself if you want, I'll leave the judgement to the rest of members in this forum.

Notice how the quoted verses "envelope" the single verse you referenced Joe? That is context. I try my best not to lie to myself Joe, I encourage you to do the same.

 

[spidergoat]

Thank god at least U can distinguish between Good and Evil.

Only within the context of human society. Outside of this, they don't exist. Certainly not as eternal existential forces battling it out for supremacy.

 

[Anomalous]

Only within the context of human society...

Now that we know what they are, then what are we waiting for , lets work towards them.

 

[Jeremirroer]

It's an age old paradox.

Without evil, good cannot exist.
Without good, evil cannot exist.

It's yin and yang.

What would light be without dark?

What would night be without day?

What would nothing be if there wasn't something?

What would death be without life?

and so on......

 

[Joeman]

If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. [17] If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins."[/indent] Numbers 36:6

"This is what the LORD commands for Zelophehad's daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within the tribal clan of their father."

Typical text twisting rationalization. The second verse place a limit on who the girls can marry. It doesnt specify in the situation of the first verse. I only have to put out the fact that the first verse said the rapist MUST MARRY HER. That doesn't leave room for any interpretation.

It appears here, Joe, that the woman has all the power.

It appears to you, but not me or anyone else. It's intellectual dishonesty.

The point is that the punk has violated the woman as she is no longer a virgin and in that culture no "self respecting bachelor" would want to marry her. She has the option of refusing to marry the bastard;

The point of the law is to fix the problem of another law - A woman will be stoned to death if she marry without her hymen. If a woman is raped, she can never marry again. That doesn't say anything about men. It is trying to bandaid one unjust law with another. Rediculous.

As far as Romans, why you don't go back even further? The whole point of Romans, especially the first 11 chapters, is that first there were the Jews and then there are the Gentiles. Also Paul doesn't "teach" universal morals but situational ethics.

"To the Jews I became as a Jew, to win the Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law-though not being myself under the law-that I might win those under the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel..." Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:20-23"

He is basically a chameleon saying things just to please people. That makes the whole debate on Romans worthless.​

 

[water]

Only within the context of human society. Outside of this, they don't exist. Certainly not as eternal existential forces battling it out for supremacy.

EVERYTHING humans talk about, they talk about it within the context of human society.
Unless you have some super revelation into objective reality, there's no other way but to forever be bound to the context of human society.

Just like without the context of human society, there may be no chairs, tables, trees etc. in objective reality, there may be no good and evil without the context of humans society. This doesn't make the concepts of good and evil redundant though. On that grand scale, good and evil just seem more abstract and less real than chairs and trees, but not any less useful in how we organize and understand our lives.

 

[MarcAC]

I only have to put out the fact that the first verse said the rapist MUST MARRY HER. That doesn't leave room for any interpretation.

Quite so Joe... that's why the other verses exist - just like the situation above with Paul and the Romans; You I2E. There is no denying that the sick *expletive* pays for what he's done - especially if her father decides he's not good enough for her - I would assume here that the father would value the daughter's input (as indicated by the Numbers ref.).

It appears to you, but not me or anyone else. It's intellectual dishonesty.

Always speak for yourself Joe. You mean it is dishonest to your intellect; it doesn't agree with your conclusion that the woman is totally disadvantaged.

He is basically a chameleon saying things just to please people. That makes the whole debate on Romans worthless.

O.k. Joe. If you say so. I think it's crap though. You can look at it two ways Joe: either what Paul is saying is congruent and must be considered within the context of all text available by him... or... it's as you say (i.e. Paul sends different messages to different people). Well, I understand him - in China I speak Chinese as more people will understand what I say. While the language might have been different the message was (and is) the same Joe. Let those who read and understand decide no? No I2E.

 

[JohnGalt]

That's why the other verses are there??? Contradictions I tell you, contradictions! If something is false, it must constantly contradict itself to appear true.

I'm refering to your response to your first quote of Joeman.

 

[MarcAC]

That's why the other verses are there??? Contradictions I tell you, contradictions! If something is false, it must constantly contradict itself to appear true.

I'm refering to your response to your first quote of Joeman.

I don't get it - what's contradictory?

 

[Joeman]

Quite so Joe... that's why the other verses exist - just like the situation above with Paul and the Romans; You I2E. There is no denying that the sick *expletive* pays for what he's done - especially if her father decides he's not good enough for her - I would assume here that the father would value the daughter's input (as indicated by the Numbers ref.).

What part of "He MUST MARRY HER" don't you understand? It doesnt' matter many other versus exists, you must harmonize that verse. It's common practice for Christians to harmonize things away with other versus if there is a verse they don't like. Hey, you don't need other versus to harmonize something away if you like the verse.

Always speak for yourself Joe. You mean it is dishonest to your intellect; it doesn't agree with your conclusion that the woman is totally disadvantaged.

Women ARE totally disavantaged in the bible. If there is no way I can convince you regardless how much evidence there are, there is no point.

O.k. Joe. If you say so. I think it's crap though. You can look at it two ways Joe: either what Paul is saying is congruent and must be considered within the context of all text available by him... or... it's as you say (i.e. Paul sends different messages to different people). Well, I understand him - in China I speak Chinese as more people will understand what I say. While the language might have been different the message was (and is) the same Joe. Let those who read and understand decide no? No I2E.

Paul DOES say contradicting things to different people. In Galatians, he said the following the law or not is inconsequential. In Romans, he said the law should needs to be upheld.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

M*W: Although it is quite obvious that you argue for the sake of arguing, I will only answer your post, not for your benefit, but for the others reading this.
*************
water: Medicine Woman,

But do you ever get to see this collectively contained knowledge in its fullness? No.
*************
M*W: I believe I have seen it, but if you're speaking about what the collective mind experiences, I can say that there is an evolution/progression to the cumulative human mind. There are things I've observed about humanity during my relatively short time on this planet. My childhood was formed by WASP traditions. Anything other than WASP's did not exist in my life. That was the way society was -- then. But, society matured, and it was okay to venture out of the WASP traditions, because there was a whole world out there that were not WASPs. Now we have diversity, and it is now a way of life. This is just an example of being able to "see this collectively contained knowledge in its fullness." As we mature, so does our societal traditions, or hopefully they do. Just imagine what kind of world it would be if the church was still the state? Imagine what the world would be like if we still lived in the traditions of a pre-1964 time of segregation?

Also, during my life, I have seen the change-over from Democrats to Republicans and vice versa. In my early adulthood, we were all proud to be Democrats. Republicans, we thought, were the enemy. Watergate confirmed this for us. But, now, the Democrats have become more liberal, and the Republicans have evolved into conservatism.

My point is that the "collective human mind" does, in fact, evolve and progress in time, regardless of whatever it is that the human mind observes.
*************
water: Well, you like proving this ... prove that humankind created God!
*************
M*W: That is one school of thought, but like proving that there is a God, that just cannot be proven -- today or 2000 years ago.
*************
water: It all depends on 1. your definiton of God, 2. what you accept to be evidence of God.
*************
M*W: As an Atheist, I do not have a definition of God. The only definition I ever had (when I was a xian) was that God was the creator and the destroyer, the first and the last. When I first came to sciforums, I was still a believer in the creator god. As an Atheist, there is nothing I accept to be evidence of God. For me to change my mind about Atheism, there would have to be some incontravertible evidence in the world to prove without a doubt there was a God. Being on sciforums for nearly four years, no one has been able to prove there was a god. No one!
*************
water: Well, if you believe that God is a fairy tale being, then it is, by all means, better that people dont' believe in such a god.
*************
M*W: All we have is the myth. How we confirm the truth about there being a God, no one has ever provided the proof. What Christians believe in their "collective human mind" does not provide any proof of God.
*************
water: Beware of the consequences of such worship! Would you worship GW Bush? Your husband?
*************
M*W: I worship no one on Earth. No one is worthy of my worship, be it GWB or my children and grandchildren. The only person I am responsible for is myself, but I don't worship myself as a human. I respect myself as a human, because I am a part of the human family.

 

[(Q)]

It is a knowledge that we do not have, so we can't speak on its behalf.

You're talking in riddles.

How do you know it exists if you have no knowledge of it?

 

[water]

Medicine Woman,


From this:

Worship each other and not a false being.

to this:

M*W: I worship no one on Earth. No one is worthy of my worship, be it GWB or my children and grandchildren. The only person I am responsible for is myself, but I don't worship myself as a human.

at the speed of hypocrisy!

 

[water]

You're talking in riddles.

How do you know it exists if you have no knowledge of it?

Others talk about it. This doesn't make it true, but it makes it possible. As consequent empiricists, we cannot afford to discard what is possible, even if we ourselves have no direct knowledge of it.

 

[(Q)]

Others talk about it. This doesn't make it true, but it makes it possible.

Does talking about unicorns, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy also make them possible?

As consequent empiricists, we cannot afford to discard what is possible, even if we ourselves have no direct knowledge of it.

Perhaps, but we do not jump to conclusions even with some direct knowledge therefore we cannot even begin to entertain possibilities with no direct knowledge. It is all speculation from the imagination - hardly something empiricists would even consider.