Look up the definition of the term. Origin is irrelevant.

Of course. All that remains is that you accept the reality of the subjectivity of the terms evil and bad.

Yes. Though I question your use of the term official. That suggests it was put to a vote. Facts aren't democratic.

caposkia wrote:

m not trying to accuse you of trying to escape, but you have to admit, your denial of these events ever happening makes the conversation we were having completely pointless.

You're entitled to your opinion.

caposkia wrote:

 http://www.science20.com/news_releases/the_mathematical_probability_of_life_on_other_earth_like_planets 

Funny all I see there is unsupported assertions couched in unshown mathematics. Where's the real calculation so I can rip it apart? It's been years since I had the fun of obliterating the unscientific and ridiculous probability equations creationists come up with.

too bad I don't use creationist sources... ooh... I-I mean... WRONG!

caposkia wrote:

If your description of a "true Canadian" is legitimate, then i guess I've never met a true Canadian.

I'm not making a no true scotsman fallacy, I'm simply describing some common stereotypes of Canadians. Stereotypes, while flawed, still tend to have a bit of truth to them.

caposkia wrote:

You have less power over those influences than you think... take a few psych classes and you'll see what i'm talking about.

Lol. I HAVE taken psychology and criminal psychology courses at college/university level. I passed them all at the top of my class. I know for a fact that I'm right. The courses combined with a very early instruction in critical thinking gave me all the power I could ever need to ensure the only things that influence me are those I want to have influence. Perhaps you should take some psychology courses yourself.

So if God had theoretically declared that rape was moral, would it be moral? In other words, is something moral (or immoral) simply by virtue of god saying it is regardless of our opinions? 

 

caposkia wrote:

Those of you who don't believe are judged according to the Laws you were under.  I'm willing to bet you'll be found guilty of breaking many laws over the years no matter how minor you think they were.  

The idea is "all fall short of the glory of God".  In other words, none of us have been able to meet Gods standards due to the endless generations of mistakes made in the past.  I understand that they have compiled so much we can't tel anymore what is right or wrong.  

No doubt I will be found guilty. Do you think it is right for a person to be judged under laws that they could reasonably believe do not exist? I didn't bother quoting it but you said God's laws are "clear as day", clearly not since many people don't even think it is clear that the lawmaker ever existed and even you admit that a reasonable person could come to the belief that there is no god. 

Give me one example in history of any group of people that was completely evil to the point where even their children should be exterminated. I am a bit of a history buff, probably about 30% of what I read is history, I can't think of any such group. 

At least you admit that the genocide was a "lesser" evil. Does it bother you that the God who is supposed to be the definition of all that is good committed an evil, no matter how small? For the record, I don't consider genocide a small evil at all, it is perhaps one of the largest evils ever committed by mankind. Certainly a much greater evil than those god routinely punishes humans for such as adultery or homosexuality.

They had weapons that could turn people into salt back then? Or are we no longer taking the bible literally. 

He cursed them "in the name of the LORD". So was he a witch with some other supernatural powers to attract the bears?  

 

caposkia wrote:

From what source?  How can you be sure it's their own?  Are you sure they have a thought process?  Are you even sure they have formed an opinion or belief?  Or is it in your own mind that you come to the conclusion that what you hear from them is an opinion or a belief?  Without physical evidence, none of this can be confirmed and physical evidence likely wouldn't provide a sufficient answer.  

My point exactly. Everything people say is their opinion, without physical evidence to back it up, the only thing you have to go on is whether or not you respect their opinion on the topic. I'm not looking for anyone's opinions. I want physical evidence that I could at least in theory go and look at myself. Or at the very least look at pictures of it on the internet. 

Do you think it is good to have laws that are so strict they are impossible not to break? 

And in heaven they are still going to be the same "bad" people. Unless you make them no longer people, any group of people is going to have conflict, it is part of being human. And quite frankly, even with all of the bad that comes from it, I wouldn't want to live in a world without it.

Except for the thousands/hundreds of thousands of true believers he allowed to die painful deaths as they prayed for help?

Yes, and the evidence he uses are rock formations that every other geologist uses as evidence of how old the Earth is. He argues that mineral deposits, sedimentary strata and fossils could only have been created by a massive flood a little over 4,000 years ago. Which means that dinosaurs and mammoths had to exist immediately before the flood and all of our conventional dating techniques are completely inaccurate. The evidence that Dr. Snelling claims is evidence of a massive flood, cannot be both evidence of a massive flood slightly over 4,000 years ago and evidence that the world is billions of years old. So if you are going to agree with Snelling that the rock deposits are evidence of a massive flood, you must also agree that those same deposits are not evidence of a process that was billions of years in the making.

Also you must believe that all the fossils we have found are of creatures that existed shortly before the flood. Which makes one wonder, why weren't dinosaurs mentioned anywhere in the bible? With all the other animals mentioned, you would think dinosaurs would get a sentence or two. At least a comment about why Noah couldn't fit any in his Ark. If you don't believe that all the fossilized animals existed immediately before the flood, then Snelling's evidence is not evidence of a massive flood. Those rock layers could not have been formed over eons and also formed by a massive flood instantaneously. If one theory is right, the other must be wrong; they are mutually exclusive.  

Excuse me, a third book. You know, come out with one since we have invented the printing press and have a completely different language.

 

No, I am suggesting the opposite. He had infinite choices and he (according to you) regretted making the choice he made. Therefore, God made a mistake and chose an option that was not the best out of the infinite options he had. 

Which society is that? He isn't down here on Earth with us is he?

Your god has a very big problem with it, doesn't it bother you that god is punishing people for doing something that you don't have a problem with? 

As far as marriage, I am anti-marriage and don't think government should have any role in it at all. Let people declare themselves married or unmarried as they see fit according to their personal customs and deal with the legal stuff through contracts.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

So if God had theoretically declared that rape was moral, would it be moral? In other words, is something moral (or immoral) simply by virtue of god saying it is regardless of our opinions? 

The simple answer is yes... but you have to understand that if rape was moral it wouldn't be considered rape as we understand it to be which is a very immoral act... our whole dynamic of morality would be different because it is based off of God's morals.

Consider this, extra-marital sex is considered immoral to God yet in today's American society it is considered moral by many.  

Which laws written in scripture do you find confusing?  We can discuss

Also, I left my quote above to confirm, but I had said we are judged according to the Laws we are under.  If you don't believe Gods laws exist, then you are held ot the same standard under the laws you do follow.    As you confirmed and I'll admit too, we still fall short

by what source are you looking for this judgement?  I'm guessing it's not of God.  No human has the right to make such a judgement call though many have in history as I'm sure you're well aware... We likely don't agree though with their conclusion or approach.

Again, we're talking about it from a humanistic standard with the analogies.  To judge God on it would be to say that a judge committed an evil act by punishing a criminal according to the law... do you view criminal punishment as a lesser evil?  if so then your view is an evil god worldview.  

[/quotes]

Judges commit evil acts all the time. They punish people who are innocent, they enforce unjust laws and they pass sentences that are too harsh or not harsh enough. I think judges should be held to account for their decisions and that is why I am probably one of the few people who actually pay attention to who I am voting for when judges are on the ballot. There is nothing inherent in being a judge that means your own judgments cannot be judged.

Yes, I do view criminal punishment as a lesser evil. I view government in general as a lesser evil. I would much prefer a world where is was not necessary to punish anyone. Unfortunately, the reality is that not everyone is as great a person as me and my friends, so we need to have the necessary evils of police, judges and jail. Evils which in my opinion have gained more power than necessary and are used too aggressively.

  

caposkia wrote:

She knew the consequence of turning back and did it anyway.  case closed.  moving on

How is that relevant? The Jews in the holocaust "knew the consequences", does that make what the Nazi's did right? The whole point of the discussion is I am determining if God is a moral being worth following. I am unwilling to simply write him a blank check and assume that everything he does is good like you apparently are. 

 

caposkia wrote:

God in the OT gave people powers through the Holy Spirit and as in many instances seen in scripture, people made their own choices with them.  There is so little detail in scripture about this particular incident.  unless you have an outside source, we can only speculate as to whether God approved, whether he got punished for it or not like in the case of Moses or what unfolded on account of his choice.

Perhaps god should have been a lot more careful who he gave such powers to. At the very least it would have been nice for him to include an apology. 

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

My point exactly. Everything people say is their opinion, without physical evidence to back it up, the only thing you have to go on is whether or not you respect their opinion on the topic. I'm not looking for anyone's opinions. I want physical evidence that I could at least in theory go and look at myself. Or at the very least look at pictures of it on the internet. 

So point and case, things that we know exist cannot be proven by the means you're looking for.

Really? Like what? 

 

caposkia wrote:

conflict isn't necessarily bad as you've pointed out.  I dont' know what heaven is like, but I do know that Satan isn't there, neither are the temptations of the flesh like food, sex and entertainment needs.  what is needed is love and that is abundant.  

Food, sex and entertainment happen to be three of the four things I love most about life. Certainly all three are things that I enjoy doing with people I love. I remain perplexed as to why people think heaven is such a great place to be, it sounds a lot like.... well hell.  

 

caposkia wrote:

I don't accept his dating as appropriate, but what he is using is evidence of major floods that would have formed such rock formations.  it is possible that one so severe happened 4000 years ago, however, I don't believe that was the Biblical flood.  Point and case still remains that severe floods to the magnitude of what the Bible describes could have happened in history.  They like this one he's talking about would be worse than anything we have seen in our recorded history.

Then his "evidence" is not evidence that you accept. If you don't accept it, why do you expect me to accept it? We are back to square one. Is there any evidence of the biblical flood?

 

caposkia wrote:

why would that be necessary?  anyone honestly seeking out God will find someone educated in the field that can educate them on the language issues if they so desire.  The core beliefs and important information is quite clear.  We haven't been discussing core beliefs here.  

Because all sorts of unbelievable things happened in the bible and as you said yourself, a reasonable person could come to the conclusion that there is no god. Perhaps he should make it so that only an unreasonable person would not believe in him, especially since we are going to be punished for not believing. 

 

caposkia wrote:

How are you aware of what options God had?  To say as you did, you must have insight into the "better options"  What were they and how are you sure those were better than the choice that was made?

You claim he is omnipotent. By definition an omnipotent being has as many options as can possibly be imagined. One better option would have been to not kill everyone.

 

caposkia wrote:

 

Also keep in mind that He intended to destroy humans, not "fix a problem"  it looks to me as if He had already put plans forward to do so before he found Noah to be worthy.  I think then He used it as a way of showing that the people had ample understanding of the impending doom and still did nothing to save themselves or their families.    This would also paint the picture of how selfish the people who were destroyed were.

Do you think destroying humans is a good intention? As a human, do you think you should worship a being that intended to destroy all of us? Replace god with some alien race that comes to destroy the Earth and I'm pretty sure you would regard those aliens as "bad". Why are you completely unwilling to make any kind of moral judgement of god?

Yes, humans are selfish. Should people be destroyed just because they are selfish? (I happen to regard selfishness as a good thing, but that is a rather long tangent to go down.)

 

caposkia wrote:

It would be His society.  And well... the bible says "where 2 or more are gathered in my name, there I will be"  paraphrased by me.  Revelation goes on to say that He will come down and live with His people on Earth... so in a way, yes he's down here and His society is those who follow Him.  

So he is a tyrannical dictator that thinks he can rule over us regardless of our desires. If we created an intelligent species, would you think we have the right to rule over them? I think we should give them the option of having their own society without us. I see nothing inherent in the act of creating a species that gives a moral right to rule them. 

 

caposkia wrote:

i don't have a problem with safe speeding, pot smokers and some under the table gambling however the human law still punishes them for it.  i also don't support it and validate it like I said, so again it's their choice and I let the Law speak for itself.  I know they're all aware of the Laws they're breaking and they're ok with it.  Who am I to judge them?

Then who are you to support laws that make those actions illegal? Perhaps you should join those of us in the legalization movement and help us legalize gambling, pot and raise speed limits in areas where it is safe. If you don't think that you have the power to judge someone for a particular action, why do you think that society should have that power? 

 

caposkia wrote:

 

so to answer you strait, no because they're still breaking the Law... Even more so because if they're punished for it, then they chose not to take into their heart Jesus who died for them so that they wouldn't have to be punished for their wrongdoing.

Perhaps God needs to change his law.  

 

caposkia wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

As far as marriage, I am anti-marriage and don't think government should have any role in it at all. Let people declare themselves married or unmarried as they see fit according to their personal customs and deal with the legal stuff through contracts.  

I like the tax benefits of being married, so in that I might not completely agree, but I do agree that it should not be politics.  Just give us the tax break and leave us alone.  I'm with you on that.

Of course you like the tax benefits since you benefit from it, but do you think it is fair that single people do not enjoy the same benefits? Why should you get a tax break that I don't get simply because you are married?

"I have.. college/university level... funny how we have a different view of influence and control.  There is conscious influence and subconscious influence." With sufficient education and introspection one can become aware of their subconscious on some levels (unconscious is the actual terminology, but if you took psychology you should already know that...). Anyone can do it. Most people don't try because it is hardly a fun experience trying to figure out who you are and why you do the things you do. "If what you say is true, you must have reached Zen.  Congratulations!" Thanks. Now where's the source for that probability equation? You've sparked a hunger in me.

Which probability equation is that?  The one I provided a link for or the one I said I didn't remember the source for?  that being 10^64 give or take

Beyond Saving wrote:

Perhaps your morality would be different. Many of us would still view rape as bad regardless of god's view on the subject, just like many of us are horrified at the idea of stoning people, the death penalty and genocide despite god apparently being ok with and even encouraging such actions.

The thing is, believe in Him or not, if God is real then He created you with the views and desires you have.  You can speculate that you would still be horrified by the idea, but considering our hypothetical scenario, logically you wouldn't be.

If God was pure evil, then evil would be good, but it's not, it's evil.  To a Christian, what you're trying to compare is water to dryness.  If water was dry it would not be water, if dryness was wet, it would be water, you can't interchange the two. 

so then you believe that morality is entirely subjective?  

God ultimately judges and knows all laws put in place... you'd be judged based on the laws of the country/state/county/town that you happen to reside in no matter how many different ones that is.  You are also judged on what you understand and have been made aware of yet chose to oppose. I don't mean this necessarily as opposing God.  It can apply to that law that says don't J-walk and you do it anyway.  

Do you believe you're capable of following to a T all the laws you may be living under and have lived under throughout your life and have you?  (more rhitorical than not, but up to you on answering)

I choose not to judge because I haven't the authority in heaven or here on Earth to do so, but if God has made that judgement against another nation, likely that nation was responsible for many genocides and likely many more.  This is what I understand to be so.  To destroy them would be to prevent other genocides.   Unlike humans, God would logically have the power and authority to judge a whole nation and follow through with the consequences for that nation.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

Judges commit evil acts all the time. They punish people who are innocent, they enforce unjust laws and they pass sentences that are too harsh or not harsh enough. I think judges should be held to account for their decisions and that is why I am probably one of the few people who actually pay attention to who I am voting for when judges are on the ballot. There is nothing inherent in being a judge that means your own judgments cannot be judged.

Yes, judges commit evil acts... again we're talking on humanistic standards... so the obvious question then is do the judges that commit evil acts automatically condemn the judges who are just?

well I agree with you there and this statement reviels that you believe evil is subjective be it that not all would agree with you that law enforcement and government is "evil".  Also, per your explanation above, any form of attempted control and conformity to a way of life is evil.  

you're telling me the Jews in the holocaust chose that fate?  I think you'd have many who disagree with you.  

Relevance lies where a choice is able to be made by the one reaping the consequence.  

Perhaps there was a plan behind it regardless of what we see from the story alone... perhaps this man used sorcery despite his using the name of God in the curse, perhaps we can speculate all day on the pros and cons and perhaps by the time we're done we could have gotten nowhere and wasted a lot of time that could have wisely been use discussing something we don't have to speculate on.

caposkia wrote:

So point and case, things that we know exist cannot be proven by the means you're looking for.

Really? Like what? 

We have already established that my morality is not the same as gods, so if God's morality were even more different, I would still be horrified. You are the one who's morality is apparently completely based on God. I find it rather scary that you just blindly accept the morality of a being you have never met as being good and apparently don't have the desire to even consider the possibility that it might not be good.  

Only if you define good as everything that is god, and evil as everything opposed to him. I don't define it that way, but fine, let us get away from the semantics. If God wanted us to sacrifice an innocent virgin to him once a year, would you do it? Does that make it moral to do it? 

 

caposkia wrote:

so then you believe that morality is entirely subjective?  

Yes.

Wait a minute, so you are saying that God judges us based on human laws too? All of them? Or only the good ones? This is the first time I have heard any theist make this claim. 

And if God is only going to judge against me for breaking some human laws, but not others, how am I supposed to know which he thinks I must follow and which I can break? 

If he exists he apparently has the power. Power does not automatically mean authority. Obviously, committing genocide to prevent genocide didn't work because we have had many genocides in our history. You "understand" it to be so, but a brief look at history demonstrates that God's enforcement is at best inconsistent and at worst random. Do you think committing genocide is a good strategy to prevent genocide? I know, you won't judge. You refuse to even consider the possibility that God is less than perfect. Kind of reminds me of the mother who is shocked when her little boy murders someone and in the face of irrefutable evidence will say "but he is such a good boy, he would never hurt anyone". It is becoming increasingly clear that you have no interest in really confronting your beliefs.  

Yes, judges commit evil acts... again we're talking on humanistic standards... so the obvious question then is do the judges that commit evil acts automatically condemn the judges who are just?

Most only do it once or twice: quantity of forest & grass fires 0.01 quantity of anaeorbic bacteria in the oceans 0.01 quantity of aerobic bacteria in the oceans 0.01 quantity of anaerobic nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the early oceans 0.01 quantity, variety, and timing of sulfate-reducing bacteria 0.00001 It is USING PRE-EXISTING LIFE to calculate the PROBABILITY OF LIFE FORMING. Absolutely ridiculous. I rest my case. Thanks, that was fun.

@ Caposkia #1: local abundance and distribution of dark matter 0.1 Right off the hop this equation makes an unproven assumption. We don't even know for certain there is dark matter. The theory behind dark matter is an attempt to explain certain observations in the universe. That it has gained wild popularity does not mean it exists. In fact it might not exist, and forces we are as yet unaware of may yet explain the observations. Compounding the error of assuming its existence is assuming it must be distributed in a certain way, which is impossible to prove when we can't even prove it exists. I'll now skip ahead a bit, since countering every single point would take me years. 5: density of giant galaxies in the early universe 0.1 Exactly what do densities of galaxies in the early universe have to do with us? We aren't in the early universe. If it was 10 billion years ago I'd agree this makes a very good point, but it's not 10 billion years ago. 6-16 are all speculation at best and irrelevant at worst.

How have you had conversations with him? How do you know it is him?

Obviously my morality isn't in line with most humans. If it were there wouldn't be wars, crime and we wouldn't be constantly stealing from each other through the system known as taxation. If everyone shared my morality, the world would be a much better place to live. 

The word "evil" comes directly from the word "yfel" which comes from the word "upelos" which means going beyond acceptable limits. I wasn't until the 18th century that the word "evil" really developed religious overtones. It is only in American dictionaries where the devil and god are mentioned in connection with the definition.  

No, I wouldn't have my own sacrifice, it would just be a difference of whether or not I support a violent revolution. If our country supported such sacrifices because the Christian God said we should, I would fully support taking actions to stop them, including going to war and killing them. The morality (or lack thereof) of your god plays absolutely no role in my morality. 

It is a very good thing that human morals have changed. Would you want to live in a society that maintained the laws and punishments set up by God in the OT?

But if God had decided it was moral, you would think it is moral too? IOW, the only reason you think sacrifices are immoral is because you believe God thinks it is immoral. Why? You are saying that if your God were the exact opposite of what you say he is, if he was evil and completely immoral by today's standards, you would still call him moral and still be a loyal follower.

What is it about god that makes you completely unwilling to make a determination of whether or not he is good before deciding to follow him? What is it that makes you apparently completely unwilling to even ask the question? This is the crux of what I am trying to get to. I simply do not understand how anyone can think that way. 

How is that religious? It requires no belief in anything supernatural and recognizes that other people legitimately have different moralities than me. I don't expect you to just accept that my morality is right on faith. 

Well I can go through life just fine without committing adultery (I am single for life), without murdering anyone, not stealing and I am the least coveting person I know. Following that law isn't so difficult. 

I don't care if committing a genocide prevents 1000 genocides in the future. Genocide is always bad and anyone who places value on human life should agree.

 

Of course not, but I am not talking about judging all judges, just this one particular judge and in this case, on a particular decision he made to determine whether that particular decision was good or bad.

Ridiculous. God is omnipotent, preventing the flood would have been as easy for him as not pulling the trigger. In the blowing up the building scenario, the person who goes in might be stupid but if the person with the switch knows the person went into the building or even failed to double check to see if anyone ignored the warning, I would say they are liable for the death of that person and are in the wrong. Under US law, a demolition crew that is responsible for such deaths can and will be charged for manslaughter. Just because the people were warned that the building was going to be destroyed is not a viable defense. I don't see it as a viable defense for god either, especially since God is omnipotent so by definition, knew that people ignored the warning and had the ability to stop the rain at any time.

If God's morality is consistent as you claim then what difference does it make that humans had a different culture when judging God's morality? You say we have changed and he has not.  

It is not ok and God had the opportunity to say "Hey, I don't like it when you stone children." He didn't. He said, "you should stone people for all of these crimes". And the people obeyed because God is perfect and infallible blah blah blah. He had the ability, opportunity and power to say "This is wrong", instead he encouraged the behavior and to me, that says a lot about his moral compass. It makes far more sense when you look at god as the creation of barbarians who did not have the morality we have today.

The Abrahamic god was created by ancient people who placed little value on human life. He got a face lift with the NT to make his values more consistent with the human values at the time. 

I approach all knowledge with skepticism. Until you have evidence, all you have are theories that may or may not be true. I believe absolutely everything should be questioned repeatedly and we should always be willing to accept that what we think we know may be completely wrong. If that makes me a doubting Thomas so be it. That is how I approach all subjects, not just religion. 

Yes, my own morality.

1. We have already had this discussion- at least some of them were innocent because we know some of them were babies. 

2. People not being slaughtered is a better outcome for its own sake. 

 

The only existence I have is physical.

He is punishing people that are not causing any harm. Even you said that you do not have a problem with it.

When he pretends to give us free will it is wrong. You can't give someone something and then get mad because they don't use it in a way that you like. Are we simply tools that God designed for a specific purpose and can use for whatever he wants? Or are we intelligent beings that ought to have the freedom to think for ourselves? You keep telling me that God did not design us to be robots. He gave us intelligence and the ability to make decisions. What right does he have to then turn around and punish us when we exercise the powers he gave us? Why should we recognize him as an authority and tolerate him claiming the right to judge us?

 

Be it that this person took the time to reference over 200 sources for his conclusions.  It suggests to me that he might have done more research on the subject than both of us combined.

are you just pulling this stuff out of the air or do you have sources that back up your claims here?

That's what Hitler thought too.  Everyone seems to have their own ideals.

I have had conversations through prayer as all believers do, yes there was a 2 way communication involved.  How do I know it was him?  Same way I recognize a friend on the phone without looking at caller id.  If you know them, you know them.

The concept of course went much further back.   I'm not arguing that the Bible had literally the word "evil" written in it be it that "evil" is English, but the word we translate it from is understood as "evil".  beyond acceptable limits makes sense.  In this case, beyond the acceptable limits that God put in place.  If it is not beyond those limits it is good, and if it is, it's evil.  

To get techinical OT 'Ra' was typically in reference to a "bad" usually physical but also referenced in other ways and typically associated with the sins people committed.  (Ot btw, way before the 1800's)  This bad is seen as the evil as translated.    Other Biblical origins translated today into "evil": poneros, kakos, kakon

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

No, I wouldn't have my own sacrifice, it would just be a difference of whether or not I support a violent revolution. If our country supported such sacrifices because the Christian God said we should, I would fully support taking actions to stop them, including going to war and killing them. The morality (or lack thereof) of your god plays absolutely no role in my morality. 

It is a very good thing that human morals have changed. Would you want to live in a society that maintained the laws and punishments set up by God in the OT?

you make a lot of assumptions for someone who is not taking into consideration the life of the time in question.  IF you supported a revolution against these followers it would have been for your god whoever that might have been.  You can say you wouldn't have had your own sacrifice, but is not killing others a form of sacrifice if your god says to do it?  That's kind of worse than animal sacrifice don't you think?

We can go back and forth on this till the site crashes.  Point and case, you'd be thinking and acting different than you are now if the scenario we're discussing were to come to pass.  I can speculate considering my personality and morals now that I would never sacrifice animals.  I understand though that my personality and morals would be congruent with the society and culture that I lived in at the time.

If Elon Musk (CEO and creator of EV company Tesla) were a oil co. guru, odds are his Tesla creation wouldn't be electric, so yes, considering that God created me and all of us, we likely would all be different if God was too.

Beyond Saving wrote:

What is it about god that makes you completely unwilling to make a determination of whether or not he is good before deciding to follow him? What is it that makes you apparently completely unwilling to even ask the question? This is the crux of what I am trying to get to. I simply do not understand how anyone can think that way. 

His sovereignty.  Be it that God defines what is good and what is bad, who am I to question the very rules that the creator put into me and everything I know to be real?  There's a whole Bible passage on this:  Isaiah 45:9-13

I'm sure you'll try to run with this in the opposite direction, but you have to think logically for a moment.  If God is thee sovereign almighty God as He is known to be, creator of everything we know to exist, then what is said has to be true whether you like it or not.    God knows how He wants His creation and as His creation, we can't question that.

 

Again, I have also seen good come out of all that God has done.  And for what we can only speculate on, its just that, speculation.  Something doesn't go in the way you want it, you can't discount every good deed we can determine was of God for a possibility that something this creator did was bad when there are little if any grounds to support it.

yet that's exactly what others of dispenationalist religions do and it's the very thing most non-believers I talk to hate about religious people.    Your supernatural belief is subjective morality and though you recognize the differences as others in religious sects do, you cannot accept the differences as legitimate and appropriate.  That is what religions do, it's separatism.  

if you are the least coveting, then you still covet.  Either way, it is quite a simple concept.

any death is bad, but to preserve life, do we let the murderer run free?

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Of course not, but I am not talking about judging all judges, just this one particular judge and in this case, on a particular decision he made to determine whether that particular decision was good or bad.

and be it that we can only speculate such, the case is thrown out.

The problem with that is if God stopped something everytime someone made a stupid decision despite warnings, nothing would ever get done IMO.  I think you see my point though.  You can speculate all you want, but when it comes down to it, God is holding us responsible for ourselves.  He's made it abundantly clear that He's not holding our hand and that He's going to do what He's going to do no matter what decision we make on our own.  You're talking above about wanting God to baby us.  God is letting us choose.  There are real consequences for every choice we make.  Why would God change that?  

Consider the person that runs back into the building that is about to be demolished.  When found out that they went back in, they would be arrested.  It doesn't matter why they went back in.  They would still be put into handcuffs and hauled off for booking?  Why?  They ignored clear warnings to stay clear of a particular location.  Same applies here, though instead of stopping everything and calling up human authorities, God just goes ahead with the plan.  Considering an afterlife possibility, we can speculate that the person had communications wtih God afterwords and God likely shrugged His shoulders and says:  'I warned you not to go back'.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

If God's morality is consistent as you claim then what difference does it make that humans had a different culture when judging God's morality? You say we have changed and he has not.  

That's just it, we have changed, He has not.  Back then, there were different reasons to question God's morality than now.  

just as much as we say "it is ok to hang/electrify/inject leathally, etc. a person for specific crimes today.  God also had limitations and did not include children in those laws... doesn't mean that people didn't try to include them anyway, but the Bible talks about parenting and how the parents are responsible for their children's discipline.

Beyond Saving wrote:

The Abrahamic god was created by ancient people who placed little value on human life. He got a face lift with the NT to make his values more consistent with the human values at the time. 

or quite the opposite.  There were human/child sacrifices by followers of many other gods during that time.  Not once did the God of the Bible expect such sacrifices.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

I approach all knowledge with skepticism. Until you have evidence, all you have are theories that may or may not be true. I believe absolutely everything should be questioned repeatedly and we should always be willing to accept that what we think we know may be completely wrong. If that makes me a doubting Thomas so be it. That is how I approach all subjects, not just religion. 

Ironically I do too.  Why do you think I take the time to allow people like you to challenge my understanding?  That approach is the exact approach I take to the subject at hand.  The difference with me is I know a physical face to face is not logical and there are other logical ways of knowing and understanding this following.  I'm still willing to question any part of it if someone brings information to my attention that honestly brings rational and empirical contradiction to the table.  

Beyond Saving wrote:

The only existence I have is physical.

that's all you know.  You're not open to any other possibilities it seems

Beyond Saving wrote:

He is punishing people that are not causing any harm. Even you said that you do not have a problem with it.

people smoking pot aren't causing any harm according to some, same with theifs who sneak in and steal according to some.  If no one got hurt, then the crime is ok according to some, but that does not make it ok does it?

So when a drug dealer legitimately buys a car and then uses it to smuggle drugs, we're not allowed to get mad at them and/or arrest them for it?  That's not what the car was designed for and if I was the designer of that car, i'd be appaulled.  

Consider this in reference to the rest of your statement.  Our ancestors fought and died for what we call freedom today, yet we have many many laws in this country that punish us, sometimes severely for making decisions that some would say is simply exercising the power that we were given.  Why should we recognize our government as an authority and tolerate them?  why don't we just overthrow it and do what we want?  That would be true freedom right?

caposkia wrote:

Be it that this person took the time to reference over 200 sources for his conclusions.  It suggests to me that he might have done more research on the subject than both of us combined.

He can reference anything he wants, his conclusions based on those references ARE FALSE. I, a layman, have proved it. Period.

caposkia wrote:

are you just pulling this stuff out of the air or do you have sources that back up your claims here?

The things I'm saying are taught in high school. I suggest you attend one. What, no comment on the ultimate flaw? ROFL.

What does he sound like?

caposkia wrote:

The concept of course went much further back.   I'm not arguing that the Bible had literally the word "evil" written in it be it that "evil" is English, but the word we translate it from is understood as "evil".  beyond acceptable limits makes sense.  In this case, beyond the acceptable limits that God put in place.  If it is not beyond those limits it is good, and if it is, it's evil.  

To get techinical OT 'Ra' was typically in reference to a "bad" usually physical but also referenced in other ways and typically associated with the sins people committed.  (Ot btw, way before the 1800's)  This bad is seen as the evil as translated.    Other Biblical origins translated today into "evil": poneros, kakos, kakon

My point exactly. The term evil has nothing to do with religion in general and your attempt to monopolize the term as only having meaning within your particular religion is absurd.

How would I be any different? Your god is bullshit. No matter what you tell me he thinks is good or bad, I still think he is bullshit. If your god were the greatest good in the world I think he is bullshit, if he were the greatest evil in the world I still think he is bullshit. My opinion on God's existence is not dependent upon whatever moral stands you attribute or don't attribute to him. Whatever the bible says about morality is not in the smallest way relevant to my morality. It is apparently completely decisive to your morality.  

His sovereignty.  Be it that God defines what is good and what is bad, who am I to question the very rules that the creator put into me and everything I know to be real?  There's a whole Bible passage on this:  Isaiah 45:9-13

you've really got to calm down and read before you reply.  I said "it seems you're making a lot of assumptions"  I did not tell you you were or make the claim that you were, the way you've been responded makes it seem that way.  Here i was looking for you to assure me you weren't... this reply wasn't very reassuring on that front.

Ok.  If so, then please explain.

Source

you have proved nothing.

ok, then sourcing it should be easy.

I've been strait with you from the getgo.  If you keep looking for issues, we're never going to get to the point.  If you're so sure I'm assertion king, please show me the flaws in my belief.  That should be easy right?  

I'll just say everyone who has taken your path has hit a wall, this path being trying to play the blame game for delusions, assertions or lies.  Why?  Because I never do any of it.  I'm here to have my following challenged.  this way I can grow in it.  if it is false, I will see that and correct my path, but so far, i have only seen more reason that it is true.  I have learned a lot from rational discussion with people on this site.  Many people are much more knowledgeable than I on scripture and history.  Those are the people I love to discuss with because I always learn something new.  Despite your beliefs in me, i'm not afraid to find out my following is wrong.  I'm not resisting change, but I do believe it's true and just like you, I'm not going to just change my mind because someone says I'm asserting or lying to them or am delusional.  They actually have to show me why and give me logical reasoning why their understanding is more correct.    

Just for the record, I have modified my understanding of small key aspects because someone more knowledgeable than me has shown me how I was mistaken.  I made it clear to them that i was wrong too and that I agreed with their understanding as well.  so let's stop the runaround and focus on the points.  All the rest is just distraction.

Due to your complaint of my posts being too broken up, I'm not ignoring the rest of what you posted. I'm focusing on what seems to be the reoccuring theme with you.  If there's another point you want me to respond to, please repost it in a reply to this or another post and I will respond to it.  Maybe it will be less broken up and difficult this way.

It's more simple than you think.  You and I agreed that the Qu'ran is Bible sourced.   That would be one reason why I don't believe it's valid.  It disagrees with its main source... which implies either the source is wrong, theirs is wrong, or both is wrong.  I of course believe scripture is true, so I deduce that theirs isn't. 

One reason I deduce that is becasue their claims of Jesus are inconsistent with their sources claims and also historians claims (those who would give more detail about the Jesus person that is)  Historians accept at least that this Jesus person claimed to be the son of God and the messiah.  The Qu'ran denies this despite what historians or the Bible source say.  

It's also written by a person who grew up with a Jewish following.  This would go into why I believe the OT is incomplete.  Muhammad took that OT understanding and through possible manipulation of a demon angel (this would be an assertion based on Qu'ran claims) or maybe took it upon himself (another assertion) to claim himself as the long awaited messiah.  So now in question is why did the Jews of that time not accept Him as the True messiah?  Unlike Jesus, Muhammad managed to fulfill much less of the prophesies than Jesus is claimed to have fulfilled even by the Jews.  Jesus just by cross referencing the OT and the alleged 2 messiahs actions would be the more likely culprit being prophesied.  

The process at which Muhammad was chosen is also inconsistent with the OT source and His background.  Nowhere is an angel said in OT to use physical force to make an illiterate person write a Testament let alone every detail of it.  Part of the Bible's credibility is held up to the multiple authorships and sources for information.  The Qu'ran only has one.  Or 2 if you count both Muhammad and the OT scriptures.  These reasons alone put Muhammad in the skeptical eye of the Jew.  Not to exclude that He still failed to redeem Israel or become an earthly king as Jews believed.  

The OT is incomplete by design.  It propheies of a long awaited messiah with no conclusion of arrival of that messiah.  Even Jews woudl agree it's incomplete and they're still waiting for that coming messiah to complete the series.  

Book of mormon?  Again considering that their main source is scripture, they claim to be the book that fills in the gaps of the main book (The Bible).  Therefore, they automatically conclude that the Bible is the true, inspired word of God.  The problem is, if that is true, the Bible is quoted in Revelation and other parts that if anyone is to add to these books or take away from these books that the plagues written within scripture should be placed upon them.  In other words, just by doing the very thing they claim to be doing, they are condemning themselves according to scripture.  So both must be wrong or one must be right and the source of one takes precidence over the other that relies completely on that source.  

So why is scripture true to me?  Though a lot of historical research (see my thread with PJTS on a historical runthrough), science, consistency, personal experience and witnessed accounts, it has proven itself to me many times over.  

wait, i can smell the word of the day creeping up again.  I stopped here because there's a lot covered above.  Let's respond to that and then ask questions.  I will follow up with the questions you ask.  LIke what about history, science, etc.. but hopefully more specific than that.