You go first, how long will this continue.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13416
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You go first, how long will this continue.

Once again the fighting has started up again in Palistine. You get pee shooter rockets, accusations that Hammas is using the population as human sheilds. You get Isreal over reacting. And death and continued fighting on both sides. When is the nation crap and religious crap and  politics going to stop?

Every decade since I was born in 66 this has been an issue. I am so sick of this shit and neither side is getting anywhere. Palistine has to give up on it's theocratic politics, and self police and get the violent people out of it's population. Isrial needs to give up on it's invasions and settlements.

It sickens me that people don't get tired of war and violence. How many humans on either side have to die before it becomes clear that it is futile? Neither side is gong anywhere. Humans are involved on both sides.

There was a time when someone could make a case that they were on the right side of history. But I do not see that. All I see is both sides playing victime lo9oking for excuses for more violence. I wish the international community would step in and settle this with peace keeping forces. Palistinians should not live in a prison, their every day civiliians should not be starved to death. But at the same time they also should not be held hostage by those in power.

Isreal needs to give up on a Jewish state and simply be a westerinized secular state. Palistinians need to purge their rulers of the theocrats and zealots. All labels aside flesh is flesh and death is death and this has been going on for far too long and has affected the entire global community for fart too long.

I am tired of the excuses. Both sides are baging their heads against the wall and getting nowhere simply pissing the other side off more. Is a boarder or a tradition or label so important as to fail to realize that in the end when someone dies on either side, you are STILL killing another human being.

 

We are mpt ;;ovomg om any nobal age of conquest anymore. The world is round, not flat. What you do Palistinians to Isreal has an affect on the world. What you do Isreal to Palistinians has an affect on the world. The selfishness and war sickens me because it seems to be nothing more than a cry for attention trying to get the rest of the world to side with one side.

 

PLEASE FUCKING STOP! You are just two groups of people on a populated planet of 7 billion. Please tell me what right either of you have to turn our planet into your childish game of capture the flag. It is my hope that the international commun9ity instead of chosing sides, SHAMES both sides int o cooperations.

 

There has been no end to this shit and I am beyond caring at this point as an outsider who has no horse in the race. This all stems from evolution and nothing more. We side as humans with that which we are familure with and defend it from outside threats. The problem is that there is an utter failure of the WORLD, not just both sides, BUT THE WORLD, to put enough pressure on both sides.

 

ENOUGH! What right does either side after all this and no end in sight have to cry "poor me". Reea;;y? You'd both take a scorched earth policy and drag the region and possibly the entire world int a war over what?

 

There should be no two state solution. I am at the point where I think both of you need to have your asses kicked, your leaders arrested and repl,aced with sane secular leaders.

 

Regardless of which side I lean to, I am not going to take sides when clearly both sides are ussing the same stupid tactics that simply perpetuate this needless conflict.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:You are

danatemporary wrote:
You are sinless?! /quote]

Did I say I was sinless? No I didn't!

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:There is

Lee2216 wrote:

There is nothing in science that contradicts scripture.

...except for the whole of physics, geology human biology and logic.

Apart from those, it's a perfect fit.


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote: Lee2216

blacklight915 wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

The truth of God is seen and known by every human being because God has made it so.

So, all atheists are lying when they tell you they don't believe your God is real?

That's correct sir.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

 

blacklight915 wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

If anyone's belief in Jesus differs doctrinally or theologically than how He is revealed in the bible would be guilty of idolatry and would be condemned to an eternity in hell.

So certain you are of peoples' eternal fates...

 

That's what the bible says.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
  Dana, thank you for your

  Dana, thank you for your informative post. However, it does rather reinforce my point (that morality is subjective and what was deemed acceptable in biblical times now no longer is).

If the Bible is the word of god, and the bible does not condemn slavery outright, as modern morality (generally) does, then God does not outrightly condemn slavery. Finding a passage in the bible that 'may' point towards making slavery a little easier on the slaves is, in my opinion, an incredibly weak way for god to say slavery is unacceptable.

So the rub remains. Lee thinks the morality of god doesn't change, but human morality does. our morality has moved away from slavery being acceptable, whilst God's is static. So Lee, as the good christian, should admit that his current moral viewpoint is wrong on this.

In fact, your point about "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities" is a great argument for subjective morality within the bible itself.. Different authorities have different rules - one may allow slaves while another may not. The bible tells people to adhere to the rules of the jurisdiction they are within... and of course these rules must be moral, or the bible wouldn't support them, because God is not immoral.

Wonderful contradiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Your logic and

Lee2216 wrote:

Your logic and position are inconsistent. Then sending a murderer to prison for life would be immoral as well if we use your logic.

Life in prison is not eternal. Life in prison does not involve burning in a lake of fire.

 

Lee2216 wrote:

No! You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me. (John 5:39)

So, it's impossible for you to be wrong about the basic tenets Christianity?

 

Lee2216 wrote:

Why would eternal punishment be unreasonable? It would only be unreasonable if God is not eternal.

Whether or not God is eternal has nothing to do with the reasonableness of eternal punishment.

Eternal punishment is infinite punishment. Since no human can cause infinite harm, no human deserves infinite punishment.

 

Lee2216 wrote:

That's correct sir.

Wow, your delusions run deeper than I thought...

 

Lee2216 wrote:

That's what the bible says.

Why should I believe what the Bible says?

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:danatemporary

Lee2216 wrote:

danatemporary wrote:
You are sinless?!

Did I say I was sinless? No I didn't!

 

You mean you haven't asked the Jesus for forgiveness lately? Shame on you!

You need to work on those magic words some more.

(Yes, I'm mocking you because you haven't shown an interest in having a discussion yet)

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:blacklight915

Lee2216 wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

So certain you are of peoples' eternal fates...

That's what the bible says.

 

How do you know the bible is correct?  Do you base your belief on evidence?  What evidence?

How would I be able to verify your beliefs?  By reading the bible?  Are there any other sources that corroborate what the bible says?  Why is your interpretation more truthful than any other interpretation?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: Lee2216 wrote:

cj wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

"Romans 1:19-21 contains the biblical explanation for why there are so many religions. The truth of God is seen and known by every human being because God has made it so. Instead of accepting the truth about God and submitting to it, most human beings reject it and seek their own way to understand God. But this leads not to enlightenment regarding God, but to futility of thinking. Here is where we find the basis of the “many religions.” Many people do not want to believe in a God who demands righteousness and morality, so they invent a God who makes no such requirements. Many people do not want to believe in a God who declares it impossible for people to earn their own way to heaven. So they invent a God who accepts people into heaven if they have completed certain steps, followed certain rules, and/or obeyed certain laws, at least to the best of their ability. Many people do not want a relationship with a God who is sovereign and omnipotent. So they imagine God as being more of a mystical force than a personal and sovereign ruler. The existence of so many religions is not an argument against God's existence or an argument that truth about God is not clear. Rather, the existence of so many religions is demonstration of humanity's rejection of the one true God. Mankind has replaced Him with gods that are more to their liking. This is a dangerous enterprise. The desire to recreate God in our own image comes from the sin nature within us—a nature that will eventually reap destruction.”

 

Nice quote.  Next time, reference your source, please.  It is rude to copy and paste without proper attribution.

http://www.gotquestions.org/so-many-religions.html

Sorry, no problem.

cj wrote:
But I was asking you. Why do you think there are so many religions and people have a hard time telling which one is the right one?  How would a person who was searching for the true god/s/dess know when they found the right one?  Would they have to come ask you?  How could they find out for themselves?

Are we not allowed to use references that reflect our own thoughts? The verses that were used gives the answer and that is my answer as well. A person would know that they have found the truth by the holy spirit. They could come to me but I would point them to God's word and the following bible verse. 

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:13-15)

 

cj wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

cj wrote:
My sister the Jehovah Witness insists all Catholics are going to hell.  They, according to her, are idolators and will be condemned.  Do you believe this as well?  If not, why not?  Is my sister going to hell instead?  Why or why not?

If anyone's belief in Jesus differs doctrinally or theologically than how He is revealed in the bible would be guilty of idolatry and would be condemned to an eternity in hell. The Jehovah's Witness organization distorts the essential doctrines of Christianity. It denies the deity of Christ, His physical resurrection, and salvation by grace. This alone makes it non-Christian. If your sister doesn't repent of her unbelief she will surely be in hell when she passes on. Same thing with Catholics. Catholicism violates the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone. Catholics believe we are saved by faith plus works. Catholicism denies that we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone.

 

Okay, you believe JWs and Catholics are going to hell.  How do you know that your version is the correct one?  Additionally, how do you know that the bible is the truth?  Maybe the Koran is the correct book to believe in and you should be praying to Allah.  Or maybe Krishna.  Or what about any of the other thousands of gods man has invented?  Is it only the bible?  Why is the bible correct and the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita not correct?  How do you know what you know?

By the holy spirit!

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:13-15)

 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17)

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:By the holy

Lee2216 wrote:

By the holy spirit!

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:13-15)

 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17)

 

What does this holy spirit look like?  How will I know it is the holy spirit and not a figment of my imagination?  If it is just an inner voice, how can I tell it is the real holy spirit?  This just sounds like some sort of deist or pagan belief that god/s/dess is within all of us.  Maybe it isn't the holy spirit but Gaia or maybe even a deceiver like satan.  How would I know for certain sure?

It is all very well to say that this holy spirit will only speak of your god, but how can I tell the difference between self delusion and the real thing?  After all, if I wanted to believe, I know I could deceive myself very easily just by wanting it to be the holy spirit.  There has to be a way to know with your evident certainty.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
Hmm, so Morality DOES change after all. Great, thanks for agreeing on that.

So Where in the bible (as your source of ethics) does it say God doesn't approve of slavery, or are you just putting words in your god's mouth? Surely, if the bible sets out regulation of slaves, then their existence in the first place must be acceptable, otherwise one of the commandments would have been, "Thou shalt not enslave another"?

So, God's word on the subject is that slaves are acceptable. Modern morality (our 'flawed human morality' which changes) condemns slavery. Should we get back to God's word on this and start enslaving people again? Would God mind if I had a slave, as long as I treated them as the bible requires?

Yeah I do agree with you. Human morals and laws change. When we die we are going to stand before a righteous and holy God who is going to judge us according to His laws not our own laws. This is where you completely miss the point. God also set out rules for divorce. Since we have divorce it doesn't mean God approves of divorce in fact He hates divorce and only set our rules because of the hardness of our hearts. Same thing concerning slavery.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Lee2216

blacklight915 wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Your logic and position are inconsistent. Then sending a murderer to prison for life would be immoral as well if we use your logic.

Life in prison is not eternal. Life in prison does not involve burning in a lake of fire.

Your still missing the point. Your focusing on duration of time and a place. The issue in not time or place the issue is law breakers must be punished.

Have you not broken God's laws?

 

blacklight915 wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

No! You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me. (John 5:39)

So, it's impossible for you to be wrong about the basic tenets Christianity?

Yes it's impossible to be wrong with the holy spirit's guidance.

 

blacklight915 wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Why would eternal punishment be unreasonable? It would only be unreasonable if God is not eternal.

Whether or not God is eternal has nothing to do with the reasonableness of eternal punishment.

Eternal punishment is infinite punishment. Since no human can cause infinite harm, no human deserves infinite punishment.

One sin committed against an eternal God deserves eternal punishment if we want to stay logically consistent.

 

 

blacklight915 wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

That's what the bible says.

Why should I believe what the Bible says?

If you don't your going to be in a lot of trouble.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
Hmm, so Morality DOES change after all. Great, thanks for agreeing on that.

So Where in the bible (as your source of ethics) does it say God doesn't approve of slavery, or are you just putting words in your god's mouth? Surely, if the bible sets out regulation of slaves, then their existence in the first place must be acceptable, otherwise one of the commandments would have been, "Thou shalt not enslave another"?

So, God's word on the subject is that slaves are acceptable. Modern morality (our 'flawed human morality' which changes) condemns slavery. Should we get back to God's word on this and start enslaving people again? Would God mind if I had a slave, as long as I treated them as the bible requires?

Yeah I do agree with you. Human morals and laws change. When we die we are going to stand before a righteous and holy God who is going to judge us according to His laws not our own laws. This is where you completely miss the point. God also set out rules for divorce. Since we have divorce it doesn't mean God approves of divorce in fact He hates divorce and only set our rules because of the hardness of our hearts. Same thing concerning slavery.

His laws that he breaks at a whim? The ones that were written for him by humans claiming to speak for him?

Why are you such a fan of hypocrisy?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:So

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
So the rub remains. Lee thinks the morality of god doesn't change, but human morality does. our morality has moved away from slavery being acceptable, whilst God's is static. So Lee, as the good christian, should admit that his current moral viewpoint is wrong on this.

Your crazy! How could my viewpoint being wrong on the issue if morals are subjective? You can't tell me I'm wrong, my viewpoint as well as yours are both equally valid if morals are subjective. Your atheistic worldview completely caves on itself and is inconsistent. God offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either. 

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:How do you know the

cj wrote:
How do you know the bible is correct?  Do you base your belief on evidence?  What evidence?

How would I be able to verify your beliefs?  By reading the bible?  Are there any other sources that corroborate what the bible says?  Why is your interpretation more truthful than any other interpretation?

I'm going to keep giving you the same verses over an over. See Romans 1 Here is additional info that you may want to look at.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/03/22/bible-is-true

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: Lee2216 wrote: By

cj wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

By the holy spirit!

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:13-15)

 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17)

 

What does this holy spirit look like?

It doesn't look like anything. The holy spirit is immaterial.

cj wrote:
How will I know it is the holy spirit and not a figment of my imagination?

When you believe God's word. 

Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 16:16-17)

 

cj wrote:
If it is just an inner voice, how can I tell it is the real holy spirit?  This just sounds like some sort of deist or pagan belief that god/s/dess is within all of us.  Maybe it isn't the holy spirit but Gaia or maybe even a deceiver like satan.  How would I know for certain sure?

You can't listen to your inner voice whatever that may be but I assume you mean listen to your heart or your feelings. Not a good idea and the bible says we can't trust own heart because it is deceitfully wicked. (Jeremiah 17:9) You are correct in that satan is the great deceiver and he accomplishes this through the world's many false religions. Every thing said in the name of God must be compared to the word of God.

 

cj wrote:
It is all very well to say that this holy spirit will only speak of your god, but how can I tell the difference between self delusion and the real thing?  After all, if I wanted to believe, I know I could deceive myself very easily just by wanting it to be the holy spirit.  There has to be a way to know with your evident certainty.

It's not you that deceives yourself but satan himself that is deceiving you. You can know with absolute certainty. Repent and believe what the bible says.

 

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
So the rub remains. Lee thinks the morality of god doesn't change, but human morality does. our morality has moved away from slavery being acceptable, whilst God's is static. So Lee, as the good christian, should admit that his current moral viewpoint is wrong on this.

Your crazy! How could my viewpoint being wrong on the issue if morals are subjective? You can't tell me I'm wrong, my viewpoint as well as yours are both equally valid if morals are subjective. Your atheistic worldview completely caves on itself and is inconsistent. God offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either. 

 

You haven't given us your viewpoint. You've given us the viewpoint of an old book that you've shown you'll ignore when it suits you.  Just like the god of that book and the guys who created him.

Says "do not lie" then lies and commands lies - 1 Kings 22:22-23, http://www.evilbible.com/Jesus_Lied.htm

Says "do not kill" but kills and commands killing - too many references to name.

Is against adultery but for child rape to bring himself into the world (if you buy the story).

I really hope your character is better than that of God's - he's a real dick.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:cj wrote:How

Lee2216 wrote:

cj wrote:
How do you know the bible is correct?  Do you base your belief on evidence?  What evidence?

How would I be able to verify your beliefs?  By reading the bible?  Are there any other sources that corroborate what the bible says?  Why is your interpretation more truthful than any other interpretation?

I'm going to keep giving you the same verses over an over. See Romans 1 Here is additional info that you may want to look at.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/03/22/bible-is-true

And just like the edicts of God - the link is broken.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:cj wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

cj wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

By the holy spirit!

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (John 16:13-15)

 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:16-17)

 

What does this holy spirit look like?

It doesn't look like anything. The holy spirit is immaterial.

cj wrote:
How will I know it is the holy spirit and not a figment of my imagination?

When you believe God's word. 

Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 16:16-17)

 

cj wrote:
If it is just an inner voice, how can I tell it is the real holy spirit?  This just sounds like some sort of deist or pagan belief that god/s/dess is within all of us.  Maybe it isn't the holy spirit but Gaia or maybe even a deceiver like satan.  How would I know for certain sure?

You can't listen to your inner voice whatever that may be but I assume you mean listen to your heart or your feelings. Not a good idea and the bible says we can't trust own heart because it is deceitfully wicked. (Jeremiah 17:9) You are correct in that satan is the great deceiver and he accomplishes this through the world's many false religions. Every thing said in the name of God must be compared to the word of God.

 

cj wrote:
It is all very well to say that this holy spirit will only speak of your god, but how can I tell the difference between self delusion and the real thing?  After all, if I wanted to believe, I know I could deceive myself very easily just by wanting it to be the holy spirit.  There has to be a way to know with your evident certainty.

It's not you that deceives yourself but satan himself that is deceiving you. You can know with absolute certainty. Repent and believe what the bible says.

 

 

1. "immaterial" = completely indistinguishable from nothing

2. yay! Another "You have to believe in God before you can believe in God" example.

3. So you can't listen to your heart unless you become a Christian - then whatever you want to do becomes "of God".

4. You can't make that statement if your idea of certainty is based on that self-contradictory, demonstrable wrong book. Read your Bible, son. Satan is the only one who told the truth in the whole book.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:The issue in

Lee2216 wrote:

The issue in not time or place the issue is law breakers must be punished.

Not all punishments are equal; not all punishments are justified, and not all laws should be obeyed!

 

Lee2216 wrote:

One sin committed against an eternal God deserves eternal punishment if we want to stay logically consistent.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

Lee2216 wrote:

If you don't your going to be in a lot of trouble.

And why should I believe that?

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Beyond Saving

Lee2216 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Really. Morality is as subjective as beauty.

 If you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can judge what is right or wrong, then how do you determine what is right and wrong?

Why would I need an objective standard? You go through life making subjective determinations every single day. Do you need an objective standard to determine whether something is beautiful or ugly? To determine whether a song is good or bad? To determine whether your dinner tastes good?

 

 

Yes we do make subjective determinations every day. I agree with you there. I was speaking specifically of morality. If you believe it is wrong to murder someone and some joe blow over in the middle east believes it's ok to murder someone how do we know which is the right standard if morality is subjective?

Human history has shown that those with the biggest guns make that decision. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
Surely, if the bible sets out regulation of slaves, then their existence in the first place must be acceptable, otherwise one of the commandments would have been, "Thou shalt not enslave another"?

GodsUse I have a question for you aside from all the "god" bullshit and completely off topic but this thread is derailed anyway. Do you believe that a person can voluntarily subject themselves to slavery? And suppose that person voluntarily subjected themselves to slavery to you so you can be as benevolent or cruel as you deem appropriate- could it possibly be moral for you to accept their servitude? Or is "thou shalt not enslave another" something you would consider an absolute rule for yourself, no exceptions?   

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:It's not you

Lee2216 wrote:

It's not you that deceives yourself but satan himself that is deceiving you. You can know with absolute certainty. Repent and believe what the bible says.

Damn cj, you have only been back for two days and already you are receiving personal visits from satan. Congratz! Smiling

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
This has probably been posted on here before but since it fits..

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Lee2216

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

It's not you that deceives yourself but satan himself that is deceiving you. You can know with absolute certainty. Repent and believe what the bible says.

Damn cj, you have only been back for two days and already you are receiving personal visits from satan. Congratz! Smiling

 

You have no idea who I have been consorting with while I was busy elsewhere!! 


 

 

 

 

(no, Lee, not satan.  It's a joke, 'k?)

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
Surely, if the bible sets out regulation of slaves, then their existence in the first place must be acceptable, otherwise one of the commandments would have been, "Thou shalt not enslave another"?

GodsUse I have a question for you aside from all the "god" bullshit and completely off topic but this thread is derailed anyway. Do you believe that a person can voluntarily subject themselves to slavery? And suppose that person voluntarily subjected themselves to slavery to you so you can be as benevolent or cruel as you deem appropriate- could it possibly be moral for you to accept their servitude? Or is "thou shalt not enslave another" something you would consider an absolute rule for yourself, no exceptions?   

 

From a woman's perspective, there are many who voluntarily enslave themselves.  And there are those who believe it is entirely moral to accept their offer of enslavement.  I requested that the word "obey" be removed from my wedding vows.  There is no need in my relationship for one person to be enslaved to the other.  And I intended it both ways - my husband is not enslaved to me, either.

As for some strange person offering to wait on me hand and foot?  Nah, I like my privacy too much.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's pretty funny

 

Lee2216 wrote:

It's not you that deceives yourself but satan himself that is deceiving you. You can know with absolute certainty. Repent and believe what the bible says.

 

To hear a christian bringing to bear that wondrous fundamentalist argument asserting that when you believe you will know the truth. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:cj wrote:How

Lee2216 wrote:

cj wrote:
How will I know it is the holy spirit and not a figment of my imagination?

When you believe God's word. 

Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 16:16-17)

 

cj wrote:
If it is just an inner voice, how can I tell it is the real holy spirit?  This just sounds like some sort of deist or pagan belief that god/s/dess is within all of us.  Maybe it isn't the holy spirit but Gaia or maybe even a deceiver like satan.  How would I know for certain sure?

You can't listen to your inner voice whatever that may be but I assume you mean listen to your heart or your feelings. Not a good idea and the bible says we can't trust own heart because it is deceitfully wicked. (Jeremiah 17:9) You are correct in that satan is the great deceiver and he accomplishes this through the world's many false religions. Every thing said in the name of God must be compared to the word of God.

 

cj wrote:
It is all very well to say that this holy spirit will only speak of your god, but how can I tell the difference between self delusion and the real thing?  After all, if I wanted to believe, I know I could deceive myself very easily just by wanting it to be the holy spirit.  There has to be a way to know with your evident certainty.

It's not you that deceives yourself but satan himself that is deceiving you. You can know with absolute certainty. Repent and believe what the bible says.

 

Seriously, Lee.  I get that you believe the holy spirit is talking to you through the bible.  But to me it sounds like talking to yourself.  Can you tell me how you are certain sure it isn't just you talking to you?  Have you had any original thoughts not your own?  Any confirming evidence other than "it feels like the holy spirit so it must be?"

If the holy spirit is immaterial, how do you know that it isn't your inner voice?  What is the difference between the two?  Is it just the words you read?  But the words are not original, they are printed in the bible.  So the holy spirit isn't speaking, you are just reading.

I'm just trying to understand your process for differentiating immaterial holy spirit from your own inner voice.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1475
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Amazing old world order ..all made anew(φαινόμενoν ) phenomenon

Amazing old world order .. all made anew(φαινόμενoν ) phenomenon with new evidence for a Global Deluge 
   These are the things that only adds to the reasons the board holds a treasured place in my heart and where else can you find these  things  

                   __________________________________

 

    Before I begin or  forget, I should have thanked X for correcting me where I was wrong about a detail in Nordic myth, I still havent read the Eddas in a long while. If you're ever about thanks for keeping me honest. I might have almost done that purposefully in a way because of the obvious   confusion about Ragnorrock it undoubtedly generates (video is down, he'll know).  

Lee's quote

Lee2216 wrote:

cj wrote:
How do you know the bible is correct?  Do you base your belief on evidence?  What evidence?

How would I be able to verify your beliefs?  By reading the bible?  Are there any other sources that corroborate what the bible says?  Why is your interpretation more truthful than any other interpretation?

I'm going to keep giving you the same verses over an over. See Romans 1 Here is additional info that you may want to look at.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/03/22/bible-is-true

  If someone like Lee is engaging in speculations ? Is Aig the best source for information? >

  I might have answered my own question, today from  Nov 11th --

 


  You directly quoted from a Aig site. Yes? In a while perhaps you will learn if you dont provide a basis for your 'beliefs', you will be deeply penalized on this board. Data, facts, findings are looked at, more subjective approaches of your (own) personal conclusions or beliefs, not so much,. In the other thread you were deeply offended w/ the term liar. Well, If you are honest as you seem to think; an honest inquiry can be made, right ? If it is true then you wont have any problems looking into matters yourself without the additional assistance of AiG or ICR, correct ? Why say that? As for Gish and Ham, there is nothing quite like going in with a desired conclusion and trying to make the evidence fit, eh ? If you show true courage and do not shrink back (Heb. 10:38-9), why'd you desire anyone who allows his beliefs cloud his judgment of the facts?!? If you are a purest like Mr. K. Ham, it isnt 6,000 years but six solar days by his teaching. Remember, It's a very human thing to find what youre looking for, if you look hard enough or if that doesn't work attack the competing theor(-ies). In the Back-to-Genesis culture, They are busily developing narratives which strike them as best fitting or explaining the problem, where the authority of the Genesis account is simply assumed. People want more than that Lee. Does sound like a safe place to retreat to for the christian, I must say.

 From Nov 11

:



   Then I only just find out moments ago about this. I cannot believe it myself, there are even worse web-sources.  Why is it when you think something can't get  any worse, (murphey's law) it does ? I havent even gotten a good look at the site yet and look at what they provide . . .

http://genesisveracityfoundation.com/global-repopulation

 Unwarranted Myth making (now made anew)

 

http://genesisveracityfoundation.com/global-repopulation

 




 If I was addressing the site:

Quote:
As the ice age snow packs were building in the aftermath of Noah’s Flood and after the Tower of Babel confusion of the languages (probably from hebrew), about five hundred miles southeast from the landing place of Noah’s Ark in eastern Turkey, the clans listed in Genesis 10.

    No!  Hebrew came later. Btw, Is that EnKi or the Lord's confusing of the languages (honest question)? Apparently this guy is 'Doctor Who ?' when it comes to timelines. I'm sorry when was the frozen snow packs to come in ? What relation to the deluge myth is that again ? How does this prove it happened?  I'm assuming you arent referring to what some have dubbed Europe's mini-Ice-Age, placing the time off even further. Oceanographic sea levels, at the height of the ice age, around  20,000 years ago was more than 400 feet (122 meters) lower than it is today (factoid).

 

 

Quote:
[The clan] began to spread out across the globe, many by sea, for instance offspring of Canaan  .. son Sidon being among them, known to many as the sea god Posidon, who with his son Atlas. Sailed west to the Sierra Morena mountains of southern Spain, the richest mining district in the ancient world, the lifeblood for the great wealth of the atlantean empire.

  No! Ionian League of Greek settlements, it's all Greek to him. And did somebody say "altantean" (I guess you arent talking about the state of Georgia). Oh, Your obviously thinking of Humphrey Bogart  in a old black and white film on Turner Classic Movies, right? Or should people be making pilgramages to the base of Mt. Olympus (in Greece) ? Who knows maybe even 'the Little Mermaid'?

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

  

Quote:
The remnant of that empire was later known at the time of the book of Judges circa 1300 b.c. as Tarshish, with the legendary “Ships of Tarshish,” he who had been a son of Javan, the greek Iawan having been namesake of the Ionians, Javan who was a son of Japheth, the “mythological” god Jupiter.

 No!  Everyone knows the Greek pantheon was later adopted by the Romans (remember) ? Oh, That's right youre making this up, how silly of me.  The origins for the god's name were the Greeks. Zeus, He was the head of the pantheon (thanks in no small way to the 'hundred handers') and a Storm deity. You may have heard of him. Always know your storm deities (a must)!! Shift in name change between ea. would have been around 31- B.C. when the roman troops conquered the last territories of the Kingdom of Macedonia. Before Roman was roman you had the  Etruscans and their deities.  http://www.history.com/topics/hellenistic-greece/videos#zeus-and-the-great-flood

 


Geography DURING Ice Age

Quote:
And because Atlantis was a coastal maritime empire, the city of Atlantis just one of its port cities, the ruins submerged off Bimini island on the Bahama Banks which have baffled scientists now come into historical focus; bronze age ruins consumed by the sea when the ice age ended, along with the rest of the atlantean empire and the other coastal ice age cities.

 No! That's the sleeping mystic "Edgar Casey" your thinking of. Search for "Lost" Atlantis Centers on Strait of Gibraltar. Most people know the greek manuscript had an error and  according to Plato it would be located no further than "or within the Strait of Gibraltar" not in the Atlantic at all  (Sorry Edgar!)

 

  

Quote:
Maya, namesake of the Mayans, was a daughter of Atlas, and mexican legend says their ancient homeland was Atlan, across the eastern ocean, so the connection to the story by Plato is complete, with the Andes mountains of South America the namesake of king Antaeus from the days of Atlantis,  and the Caribbean after the eastern mediterranean Carians, as was Carioca, later known as Rio de Janeiro, proving certainly global navigation in the 2000 b.c. timeframe.

  No! And what? 'Ponce de León' stuck a feather in his hat  and called it macaroni?!? Where 's he getting this from ?. Consult genetic study map to refresh your memory on actual migratory patterns. Japet was the father of Altas. Atlas was never real (a Titan and not a human-being)

 

 

Quote:
. .just coincidence? And Japheth was Djapatisch, or Tuisch, namesake of Deutsch, the germans (war men); Japheth the Seskef of the nordics, and Prajapeti to the hindu indians . . the language group of Japheth, so that’s just coincidence the darwinists and old earth creationists would tell you. Mount Nimrud of upper Mesopotamia bears the name of Nimrod, yet there was no confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel? So why do many ancient legends from seemingly disparate people groups, such as the ancient Toltecs (probably much of canaanite descent) of archaic Mexico, speak of the confusion of the languages in old times, just coincidence?

  No! That's for me to know and this guy to find out. Why dont you ask TWD39 (e.g. Pa)? You obviously are not familiar with the Sumerians nor the words from their religion. Worth the time invested. Mentioned in the era of seven-headed hounds  and  six-headed Lambs of the mythic. Then there's, according to tradition, the present-day Parsis descend from a group of Zoroastrians of Iran who immigrated to India. (Consult genetic migration map). By the way, The first Americans walked to the New World across a land bridge that joined Asia and North America between 70,000 and 11,000 years ago. Where did this guy say Canaan  was located again. I'm actually starting to get a head-ache.                      Fun though.

  I'll spare everyone the rest.

 

  NationalGeographicSociety (Consult Map,  Map Below) -- 



 

  p.s. -- Ian had some really great questions about the Flood for Twd39, that 'Pa' never got around to (hint, hint) Smiling

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is onlineOnline
Lee2216 wrote:Your crazy!

Lee2216 wrote:

Your crazy! How could my viewpoint being wrong on the issue if morals are subjective? You can't tell me I'm wrong, my viewpoint as well as yours are both equally valid if morals are subjective. Your atheistic worldview completely caves on itself and is inconsistent. God offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either. 

 

Which means that Yahweh is ok with slavery, incest, slaughtering Egyptian firstborn and all the genocides of the Old Testament.

Of course I can say that is wrong.

Are you really so obtuse that you think that a formulation of principles such as right and wrong can not be established outside of the Bible ?

It's called logic, reason and common sense. It's called what is reasonable and unreasonable.

That's what rational people make decisions on.

Christianity is not based on those things, the only reason that it even exists today is because it KILLED everyone that got in it's path, it MURDERED everyone that did not agree with it.

Christendom of the Middle Ages, was built on slaughter, not reason.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
So the rub remains. Lee thinks the morality of god doesn't change, but human morality does. our morality has moved away from slavery being acceptable, whilst God's is static. So Lee, as the good christian, should admit that his current moral viewpoint is wrong on this.

Your crazy! How could my viewpoint being wrong on the issue if morals are subjective? You can't tell me I'm wrong, my viewpoint as well as yours are both equally valid if morals are subjective. Your atheistic worldview completely caves on itself and is inconsistent. God offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either. 

You're trying to have your cake and eat it, you slippery thing you. 

1) You are saying your human morals are subjective, so your current view on slavery is valid

2) You are saying that God's morals do not change

3) You say we will be judged on god's morals

Therefore, by your definitions, 1) must be false - if 2) and 3) are true.

 

My viewpoint is that 2) and 3) don't exist, and 1) is true, which has no contradiction, but you, as a bible-thumping fundy, don't have this luxury, and so you cannot rationally argue that human morals are subjective. If you do, you are being hypocritical based on the logical steps above.

A question to you, if you'll indulge me.. If God (through the bible) doesn't say anything on a subject, is it ok to do it? 

 

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:


GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
Surely, if the bible sets out regulation of slaves, then their existence in the first place must be acceptable, otherwise one of the commandments would have been, "Thou shalt not enslave another"?


GodsUse I have a question for you aside from all the "god" bullshit and completely off topic but this thread is derailed anyway. Do you believe that a person can voluntarily subject themselves to slavery? And suppose that person voluntarily subjected themselves to slavery to you so you can be as benevolent or cruel as you deem appropriate- could it possibly be moral for you to accept their servitude? Or is "thou shalt not enslave another" something you would consider an absolute rule for yourself, no exceptions?



Interesting question.


I believe that the golden rule (paraphrased) is appropriate here: "We must treat others as we wish others to treat us"


Now this is a deeper statement than it first appears, as it really addresses the underlying principles of individual rights and needs - on the surface it appears to say that if, for example I don't want to be spanked, then I should never spank anyone - but in reality one must consider it in the context of how others expect and desire to be treated, and model one's behaviour according to that. Therefore, I believe that the golden rule fully allows for me to spank someone, if they want to be spanked, while personally not wanting to be spanked.


In the context of slavery, and returning to the question, if a person desires to be enslaved by another, then this is no violation of the golden law to do so. However, the question then arises, "What is this form of slavery?" The master must respect the wishes of the slave, so as long as the slave wishes to be enslaved, the relationship is valid. However, it should be the right of the slave to cancel the relationship at any time, should they wish, otherwise the rule would be broken. In this case then, one must ask, "Was the slave ever really a slave in the first place?" My response would be that voluntary enslavement is not really true servitude, merely a form of play.


So for true slavery to exist, the slave must have their cancellation rights removed from them, either permanently or for a period of time, so that even if they wished the enslavement to end, there would be no ethical requirement for the master to do so.


Let's consider a slightly different paradigm to put this in context. Imagine you receive a phonecall from me asking you to grab one of your handguns, drive round to my house and shoot me in the head. in essence I am asking you to permanently remove my human rights. If I want you to do this, is it ethical for you to do so? (Let's assume that I've taken multiple psychiatric tests and I'm mentally in perfect health, for the sake of the thought experiment). The answer to this should bear some similarity to the enslavement question above. It is a far from trivial question.


Purely in philosophical terms, I believe the request to be killed should be honoured, as the person wanting to be shot is in charge of his own life and what is done with it. If they decide to end this, then it is their right to do so in whatever way they wish. Likewise, if they decide to gift their life to another, they have the right to do so. To not allow this would in effect restrict a person from his or her absolute right to do with their body entirely as they wish, including the ending or gifting of that body. This is the only logical conclusion if one considers that we have an absolute right over our own body, tautological as that may seem.


In reality of course, this is more difficult, as one must consider whether a person who wants to be enslaved permanently really is of sound mind and able to make that decision. Regret in the decision may still be enough to invalidate the initial decision, which contradicts the premise that gifting one's own body to another can be permanent. I'd be interested to hear the opinions of others on this, as I feel I've gone quite far down the rabbit hole already..


Very good question Beyond - what are your thoughts?


EDIT: stopped it looking like an Old Seer post by adding paragraphs.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:In

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

In the context of slavery, and returning to the question, if a person desires to be enslaved by another, then this is no violation of the golden law to do so. However, the question then arises, "What is this form of slavery?" The master must respect the wishes of the slave, so as long as the slave wishes to be enslaved, the relationship is valid. However, it should be the right of the slave to cancel the relationship at any time, should they wish, otherwise the rule would be broken. In this case then, one must ask, "Was the slave ever really a slave in the first place?" My response would be that voluntary enslavement is not really true servitude, merely a form of play.

So for true slavery to exist, the slave must have their cancellation rights removed from them, either permanently or for a period of time, so that even if they wished the enslavement to end, there would be no ethical requirement for the master to do so.

I would agree with that. If the slave can cancel at any time you have marriage Sticking out tongue. I think for the purposes of discussion it makes sense to consider enslavement as an agreement to be enslaved that can only be cancelled under prescribed conditions. For example, perhaps a specific period of time, upon the completion of a specific task, the purchasing of freedom (either by the slave or the third party), or of course the master releasing the slave on their own volition. After all it isn't really slavery if the master can't get rid of the slave at their whim. 

As for your comments on assisted suicide I also agree in a philosophical sense. I don't think there is anything immoral about killing a person who desires to be killed. From a practical legal standpoint, I think any legalization of suicide assistance has to be highly regulated and limited due to the sheer impossibility of determining the actual consent and mental soundness of the person who is killed after the fact. I think the idea of voluntary slavery has very similar problems from a practical standpoint and our society should err on the side of protecting the rights of individuals even if some individuals do not want those rights. I once took it for granted that all people wanted freedom, however over time I have realized that many (perhaps most) people don't want freedom- while most don't want to be slaves, they are more than willing to give up many liberties in exchange for relieving themselves of responsibilities. 

I can imagine that there are people out there who would gladly give up all of their freedoms in exchange for giving someone else complete responsibility for making all of the decisions in their life, up to and including whether or not to end it. Personally, I would never accept such an offer from anyone because I don't want the responsibility of controlling someone else's life, but I don't believe that I could say that someone who did is acting immorally.  

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I would

Beyond Saving wrote:

I would agree with that. If the slave can cancel at any time you have marriage Sticking out tongue.

Ha ha!

On a similar vein, I recently watched a documentary about prison inmates.. a particular quote I remember was from one of them you said, "Why would I want to leave this place? You get free food, free accommodation, You don't have to think.. it's great here." So I would have to agree that some are willing to give up their freedom for a simple life. Personally I would rail against such an incarceration. I guess it just goes to show we're all but stitches in life's rich tapestry.

 

 

 


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:You haven't

jcgadfly wrote:
You haven't given us your viewpoint.

Sure I did! Here it is one more time. God offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either. 

 

jcgadlfy wrote:
Says "do not lie" then lies and commands lies - 1 Kings 22:22-23, http://www.evilbible.com/Jesus_Lied.htm

Way to take this out of context Jc. The Lord said "who will entice" and an evil spirit came forward. God didn't lie and didn't command a lie He permitted satan to deceive.

jcgadlfy wrote:
Says "do not kill" but kills and commands killing - too many references to name.

God said do not murder. It is obvious that not all killing is murder, for the Bible itself imposes the death penalty for certain crimes.

 

 

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 ...and here's a list of

 ...and here's a list of some of those crimes:

 

  • Lying about virginity. Applies to girls who are still in their fathers' homes, who lie about their virginity, and are presented to their husband as a virgin. The accused is guilty until proved innocent. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
  • The daughter of a priest practicing prostitution (death by fire) (Leviticus 21:9)
  • (for men): Sex with a man in the same manner as sex with women. Generally interpreted as male homosexuality. The girls seem to get a free... errrr ...ride on this one. (Leviticus 18:22)
  • Marrying a woman and her daughter. They are all burnt to death (Leviticus 20:14)
  • Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14-16,23).
  • Breaking the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36).
  • Practicing magic (Exodus 22:18).
  • Being a medium or spiritualist. (Stoning) (Leviticus 20:27)
  • Trying to convert people to another religion. (stoning) (Deuteronomy 13:1-11, Deuteronomy 18:20).
  • Striking your parents (Exodus 21:15).
  • Cursing your parents (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9).
  • Being a stubborn and rebellious son. And being a profligate and a drunkard. (stoning) (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
  • Ignoring the verdict of a judge – (or a priest!) (Deuteronomy 17:8-13)

I for one am in total agreement with all of these - God's morality definitely doesn't change, and we should definitely still be killed for any goddamned blasphemy. 

 

(taken from: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Actions_punishable_by_death_in_the_Old_Testament)

 


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Seriously, Lee.  I

cj wrote:
Seriously, Lee.  I get that you believe the holy spirit is talking to you through the bible.  But to me it sounds like talking to yourself.  Can you tell me how you are certain sure it isn't just you talking to you?  Have you had any original thoughts not your own?  Any confirming evidence other than "it feels like the holy spirit so it must be?"

If the holy spirit is immaterial, how do you know that it isn't your inner voice?  What is the difference between the two?  Is it just the words you read?  But the words are not original, they are printed in the bible.  So the holy spirit isn't speaking, you are just reading.

I'm just trying to understand your process for differentiating immaterial holy spirit from your own inner voice.

Yes the holy spirit is speaking to me through God's word the bible. If it were me talking to myself why would I need the bible? Never once did I say that it feels like the holy spirit in fact I warned that we can't go by our feelings (Jeremiah 17:9) I know it's not my inner voice because I'm reading God's very words. The original autographs were written under the inspiration of the holy spirit (2 Peter 3:16-17)(2 Peter 1:20-21) and the copies we have are 99% accurate. But words have a meaning and truth to them that convey a message and the holy spirit speaks through the message. 

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.(Hebrews 4:12)

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Sure I did!

Lee2216 wrote:

Sure I did! Here it is one more time. God offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either.  

So I assume you are wholeheartedly endorsing God's morals then as the right ones? That doesn't gel with what you said before when you backed off of your statement that adulterous women should be stoned. It is obvious that God's morality demands it, so by backing off that statement you are not supporting God's morality. So which is it- should we wholeheartedly adopt God's morality as described in the bible or should we create our own?

Beyond that, suppose for example that an oppressive government is moving a certain group of people to concentration camps where they are tortured, experimented on and killed and being a good Christian you are hiding one of the potential victims in your house. Some soldiers knock on the door and ask if you are hiding someone. The moral thing to do would be to tell them you are right? After all, god's morals don't change based on the situation. 

The idea that one can hold such black and white morals that completely ignore specific circumstances is a childish and simplistic view, which if one lived their entire lives rigidly following them would lead to being a rather bad person. It certainly makes sense to state that it is good for a person to generally be honest and avoid deception, but a blanket absolute rule of never tell a lie is not good. 

Same could be said of stealing. If you knew for example that someone was planning on committing a murder, stealing their guns would be a very moral act.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
So the rub remains. Lee thinks the morality of god doesn't change, but human morality does. our morality has moved away from slavery being acceptable, whilst God's is static. So Lee, as the good christian, should admit that his current moral viewpoint is wrong on this.

Your crazy! How could my viewpoint being wrong on the issue if morals are subjective? You can't tell me I'm wrong, my viewpoint as well as yours are both equally valid if morals are subjective. Your atheistic worldview completely caves on itself and is inconsistent. God offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either. 

You're trying to have your cake and eat it, you slippery thing you. 

1) You are saying your human morals are subjective, so your current view on slavery is valid

2) You are saying that God's morals do not change

3) You say we will be judged on god's morals

Therefore, by your definitions, 1) must be false - if 2) and 3) are true.

 

My viewpoint is that 2) and 3) don't exist, and 1) is true, which has no contradiction, but you, as a bible-thumping fundy, don't have this luxury, and so you cannot rationally argue that human morals are subjective. If you do, you are being hypocritical based on the logical steps above.

A question to you, if you'll indulge me.. If God (through the bible) doesn't say anything on a subject, is it ok to do it? 

 

 

No I say morals are objective and they come not from the human race but from God. The atheistic worldview says that morals are subjective. If your case is true then when have no basis for what is right or wrong only our preferences. Therefore how can you say God is evil without contradicting your own worldview. This isn't rocket science here.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
You haven't given us your viewpoint.

Sure I did! Here it is one more time. God offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either. 

 

jcgadlfy wrote:
Says "do not lie" then lies and commands lies - 1 Kings 22:22-23, http://www.evilbible.com/Jesus_Lied.htm

Way to take this out of context Jc. The Lord said "who will entice" and an evil spirit came forward. God didn't lie and didn't command a lie He permitted satan to deceive.

jcgadlfy wrote:
Says "do not kill" but kills and commands killing - too many references to name.

God said do not murder. It is obvious that not all killing is murder, for the Bible itself imposes the death penalty for certain crimes.

 

 

 

Those aren't your view points Lee. They're points that you took from a book that you only give lip service to.

And who created Satan and the lying spirit and commanded them to do their work? Sorry, God still doesn't get a pass and the context is dead on.

God said "do not murder" and commanded people to kill off the non-virgin female population in multiple towns for the sole purpose of claiming the virgins. He commanded murder and kidnapping for the purpose of rape. Happy now?

Lee, you make this too easy.

.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216

Lee2216 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:
So the rub remains. Lee thinks the morality of god doesn't change, but human morality does. our morality has moved away from slavery being acceptable, whilst God's is static. So Lee, as the good christian, should admit that his current moral viewpoint is wrong on this.

Your crazy! How could my viewpoint being wrong on the issue if morals are subjective? You can't tell me I'm wrong, my viewpoint as well as yours are both equally valid if morals are subjective. Your atheistic worldview completely caves on itself and is inconsistent. God offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either. 

You're trying to have your cake and eat it, you slippery thing you. 

1) You are saying your human morals are subjective, so your current view on slavery is valid

2) You are saying that God's morals do not change

3) You say we will be judged on god's morals

Therefore, by your definitions, 1) must be false - if 2) and 3) are true.

 

My viewpoint is that 2) and 3) don't exist, and 1) is true, which has no contradiction, but you, as a bible-thumping fundy, don't have this luxury, and so you cannot rationally argue that human morals are subjective. If you do, you are being hypocritical based on the logical steps above.

A question to you, if you'll indulge me.. If God (through the bible) doesn't say anything on a subject, is it ok to do it? 

 

 

No I say morals are objective and they come not from the human race but from God. The atheistic worldview says that morals are subjective. If your case is true then when have no basis for what is right or wrong only our preferences. Therefore how can you say God is evil without contradicting your own worldview. This isn't rocket science here.

God's morals are subjective because he doesn't consistently follow them (as you've been shown).

Individual Christians have subjective morals because they can ask forgiveness for each time they do something immoral and reset the counter - no consequences for actions.

Atheist morals have consequences that atheists can't magic away. So morals for atheists seem to exist and are objective. Help society - get good consequences. Harm society - get bad consequences.

Still too easy, Lee

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:God said do

Lee2216 wrote:

God said do not murder. It is obvious that not all killing is murder, for the Bible itself imposes the death penalty for certain crimes.

Please define for us an objective definition of what the difference is between killing and murder. Nothing subjective now like using human laws which vary quite dramatically in defining murder- I want an objective definition so that given any particular killing I can use it to determine if it was murder or not.  

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Lee2216

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Sure I did! Here it is one more time. God offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either.  

So I assume you are wholeheartedly endorsing God's morals then as the right ones? That doesn't gel with what you said before when you backed off of your statement that adulterous women should be stoned. It is obvious that God's morality demands it, so by backing off that statement you are not supporting God's morality. So which is it- should we wholeheartedly adopt God's morality as described in the bible or should we create our own?

Beyond that, suppose for example that an oppressive government is moving a certain group of people to concentration camps where they are tortured, experimented on and killed and being a good Christian you are hiding one of the potential victims in your house. Some soldiers knock on the door and ask if you are hiding someone. The moral thing to do would be to tell them you are right? After all, god's morals don't change based on the situation. 

The idea that one can hold such black and white morals that completely ignore specific circumstances is a childish and simplistic view, which if one lived their entire lives rigidly following them would lead to being a rather bad person. It certainly makes sense to state that it is good for a person to generally be honest and avoid deception, but a blanket absolute rule of never tell a lie is not good. 

Same could be said of stealing. If you knew for example that someone was planning on committing a murder, stealing their guns would be a very moral act.

Yes I endorse God's moral laws as the right ones. It does gel with what I said before. I don't believe women should be stoned because that law only applied to the Israelites of that time and was a civil law NOT a moral law. Those civil laws don't apply to any nation today. In that situation I would tell the truth to the soldiers. Would I be responsible for that persons death? No the soldiers are responsible. It would be better for that person to be killed rather than be tortured and experimented on for who knows how long. I don't follow your logic at all. If I knew that someone was planning on committing a murder I would call the authorities I wouldn't steal their guns.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Beyond Saving

Lee2216 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

Sure I did! Here it is one more time. God offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either.  

So I assume you are wholeheartedly endorsing God's morals then as the right ones? That doesn't gel with what you said before when you backed off of your statement that adulterous women should be stoned. It is obvious that God's morality demands it, so by backing off that statement you are not supporting God's morality. So which is it- should we wholeheartedly adopt God's morality as described in the bible or should we create our own?

Beyond that, suppose for example that an oppressive government is moving a certain group of people to concentration camps where they are tortured, experimented on and killed and being a good Christian you are hiding one of the potential victims in your house. Some soldiers knock on the door and ask if you are hiding someone. The moral thing to do would be to tell them you are right? After all, god's morals don't change based on the situation. 

The idea that one can hold such black and white morals that completely ignore specific circumstances is a childish and simplistic view, which if one lived their entire lives rigidly following them would lead to being a rather bad person. It certainly makes sense to state that it is good for a person to generally be honest and avoid deception, but a blanket absolute rule of never tell a lie is not good. 

Same could be said of stealing. If you knew for example that someone was planning on committing a murder, stealing their guns would be a very moral act.

Yes I endorse God's moral laws as the right ones. It does gel with what I said before. I don't believe women should be stoned because that law only applied to the Israelites of that time and was a civil law NOT a moral law. Those civil laws don't apply to any nation today. In that situation I would tell the truth to the soldiers. Would I be responsible for that persons death? No the soldiers are responsible. It would be better for that person to be killed rather than be tortured and experimented on for who knows how long. I don't follow your logic at all. If I knew that someone was planning on committing a murder I would call the authorities I wouldn't steal their guns.

To quote you, "Way to take it out of context".

The woman caught in adultery was not in violation of a civil law but a law of Moses.

"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” (John 8:3-5)

She violated one of the Ten Commandments - are you saying that those are just "civil laws" that "only applied to the Israelites of the time". Is that why you violate the 9th so easily?

The reason why the punishment doesn't apply today human morals are better than your God's.

Still too easy - are you going to start trying soon?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:Yes I endorse

Lee2216 wrote:

Yes I endorse God's moral laws as the right ones. It does gel with what I said before. I don't believe women should be stoned because that law only applied to the Israelites of that time and was a civil law NOT a moral law. Those civil laws don't apply to any nation today.

Oh, so god changed his mind. Got it. 

 

Lee2216 wrote:

In that situation I would tell the truth to the soldiers. Would I be responsible for that persons death? No the soldiers are responsible. It would be better for that person to be killed rather than be tortured and experimented on for who knows how long.

Obviously you bear some of the responsibility because you were in a situation where you could have directly prevented them being carted away. I think your comment says quite a bit about you as a person. So you would consider the people who helped hide the Jews and who worked the Underground Railroad as immoral for those actions? I can't relate with that at all. I could understand saying you wouldn't because you would be too afraid for your own life, but to consider it immoral to save an innocent life by lying shows a significant lack of empathy. I guess that is the only way you could stand being in heaven knowing so many decent people are being tortured in hell. 

 

Lee2216 wrote:

I don't follow your logic at all. If I knew that someone was planning on committing a murder I would call the authorities I wouldn't steal their guns.

In the real world the authorities generally don't show up on time- they usually show up after the fact except in fictional police tv shows. If you are in the rare position where you can actually prevent an imminent murder time is critical. If I had to lie, cheat and steal to protect the life of an innocent person I would without even thinking about it. Guess that just shows how much of a terrible heathen I am.  

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Lee2216

Beyond Saving wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

God said do not murder. It is obvious that not all killing is murder, for the Bible itself imposes the death penalty for certain crimes.

Please define for us an objective definition of what the difference is between killing and murder. Nothing subjective now like using human laws which vary quite dramatically in defining murder- I want an objective definition so that given any particular killing I can use it to determine if it was murder or not.  

There is no need to define it. It's written on our hearts. 

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:12-16)

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:cj

Lee2216 wrote:

cj wrote:
Seriously, Lee.  I get that you believe the holy spirit is talking to you through the bible.  But to me it sounds like talking to yourself.  Can you tell me how you are certain sure it isn't just you talking to you?  Have you had any original thoughts not your own?  Any confirming evidence other than "it feels like the holy spirit so it must be?"

If the holy spirit is immaterial, how do you know that it isn't your inner voice?  What is the difference between the two?  Is it just the words you read?  But the words are not original, they are printed in the bible.  So the holy spirit isn't speaking, you are just reading.

I'm just trying to understand your process for differentiating immaterial holy spirit from your own inner voice.

Yes the holy spirit is speaking to me through God's word the bible. If it were me talking to myself why would I need the bible? Never once did I say that it feels like the holy spirit in fact I warned that we can't go by our feelings (Jeremiah 17:9) I know it's not my inner voice because I'm reading God's very words. The original autographs were written under the inspiration of the holy spirit (2 Peter 3:16-17)(2 Peter 1:20-21) and the copies we have are 99% accurate. But words have a meaning and truth to them that convey a message and the holy spirit speaks through the message. 

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.(Hebrews 4:12)

 

I'm sorry, but you still have not explained how you know that this is the holy spirit speaking to you through the bible.  What is it about the message that tells you it is the holy spirit? 

And isn't this knowing a feeling?  How can knowing not be a feeling?  So you can not rely on your feeling that this is the holy spirit, there must be some other evidence so that you "know." 

As for accuracy, the bible is no more accurate than any other collection of writings from the late bronze age/early iron age historical period.  It was written by pastoralists (nomadic herders) and early agriculturalists.  The history enumerated in the bible is not borne out by archaeological evidence.  So while it says some interesting things, it is unreasonable to expect it to be accurate in our modern sense of accuracy.

Reading it, meditating on the words, will likely give you a sense of peace and contentment.  But this is no more likely than any other person of another religion reading their holy book.  So how is yours any better than those books that give other people the same meditative peaceful feeling?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:To quote you,

jcgadfly wrote:
To quote you, "Way to take it out of context".

The woman caught in adultery was not in violation of a civil law but a law of Moses.

"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” (John 8:3-5)

She violated one of the Ten Commandments - are you saying that those are just "civil laws" that "only applied to the Israelites of the time". Is that why you violate the 9th so easily?

The reason why the punishment doesn't apply today human morals are better than your God's.

Still too easy - are you going to start trying soon?

Jc, your are being exposed. The law of Moses consists of the entire 613 commandments given to Moses in the OT. In these 613 commandments there where 3 categories of law. Ceremonial, moral and civil. She broke the moral law which resulted in stoning which was civil law. The moral law still exists to this day but the civil laws don't.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:There is no

Lee2216 wrote:

There is no need to define it. It's written on our hearts. 

For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:12-16)

That isn't very objective, in fact it is completely subjective. Are you saying that if I feel guilty about it, it is murder and if I don't feel guilty it isn't?

There are plenty of people I could kill without feeling guilty about that society would consider murder, for example, I met a complete douche who beats his girlfriend regularly, cops get called, she forgives him and gets back together. I could go over there and put a bullet between his eyes and probably feel quite good about it, I doubt I would have the slightest tinge of guilt- in fact my heart would be overjoyed. Society would rightfully call it murder and throw me in jail for a long, long time. 

While when I was a soldier I faced the reality that I could be put in a situation where I have to kill some other 18 year old who was a perfectly good person that if I had met in some other situation I could have been friends with. After significant thought my assessment was that I could kill him but most likely would have feelings of guilt that I figured I could work through. (given my particular position in the military the goal was that I would in a position where I was the aggressor and hopefully not be seen before the target was killed so I wouldn't have had the luxury of pretending it was self defense.)

So tell me, in God's eyes would the first situation not be murder and the second situation murder? Because using common human law the first situation would be murder and the second not. I'll take your word as the word of god since apparently my heart is so cold and dead that I would lie to save lives so he apparently won't talk to me. I will have to rely on his message through you.  

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:There is no

Lee2216 wrote:

There is no need to define it. It's written on our hearts. 

 

Well, not everyone's heart.  I refer you to recent neurological studies that show that people who have psycho-social or borderline personalities disorders do not have the brain structures to feel empathy for another person.  It is postulated that narcissistic personalities also have this problem, but that has not yet been documented via fMRI scans. 

For a brief overview of the science, see

Baron-Cohen, Simon. The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty

http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Evil-Empathy-Origins/dp/0465031420/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355169951&sr=8-1&keywords=cohen%2C+si...

It was available through interlibrary loan, so I didn't have to buy it to read it.  I don't expect you will read it, but I will be pleasantly surprised if you do.

Given your responses to other Beyond's hypothetical moral situations, I would have to ask you:

You know that you can just ask for forgiveness for any sin, including sex with other men or murder, and you will be forgiven.  So how is a small lie that saves another person's life so heinous?  Just ask for forgiveness as you sneak the person out of danger.  If the great good does not outweigh the small sin, then I want no part of your religion.  That is not at all moral and I could not worship any god who advocated punishment under those circumstances.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4290
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
It's written on his heart my heart says more interesting things

cj wrote:

I'm sorry, but you still have not explained how you know that this is the holy spirit speaking to you through the bible.  What is it about the message that tells you it is the holy spirit? 

 

http://www.ezrapoundcake.com/archives/2381

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken