Do you believe in God?

[Exorcet]

EDIT: At no point do I think that divorce should be condemned, I'm just saying that between two Christians divorce is seen as a last option if you like.
This law is done at a woman's own will. It is an attempt to equalise a hostility in an unjustified manner, if there is no clear path out. When used correctly in union with other Christian laws, it proves beneficial.
Common sense is always applied to this rule just like any other.

If you were not saying that divorce is always bad, then I misunderstood. We in fact agree, divorce should be a last resort saved for when all other attempted solutions fail. I would not call it desperate though. Sometimes it just makes sense.

I do strongly disagree that a divorce, used properly, is like cutting off one's legs. It can can be much more appropriately described as cutting the anchor pulling you to the bottom of the sea to drown a miserable death from your legs. I've seen it first hand. I was always taught how bad divorce was in Christian schools, but it turns out it was unfairly vilified.

 

[homeforsummer]

There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands

Except we've been discussing equality, not one sex over the other.

And in future, please make it much more clear what area of your post is actually yours and which is a quote from someone. A big block of text like the above is incredibly difficult to read.

And please, no excuses about you posting from school, or an iPhone or something. We give you the good grace of posting when we have time to devote to the conversation given how in-depth it is - the least you can do is the same. If you don't have the time to post properly, don't post at all.

 

[BobK]

The historical accuracy of the New Testament is overwhelming. The evidence for Jesus is strong. The fact that Christianity spread so rapidly after the death of Jesus Christ, even when it was so strongly opposed.

You do realize that all this, particularly the speed with which it spread, is far more true of Islam than it is of Christianity, right? So if this is any sort of criterion, then Islam would be closer to the "True Faith" than Christianity could ever be. And that's even granting the "historical accuracy" part.

So when will you be converting to Islam?

"... ‘...’. ... — ... ’ ... ‘ ... ’ ... — ....

Would it be too much to ask that you clean up that crap from those quotes of yours?

 

[TankAss95]

You do realize that all this, particularly the speed with which it spread, is far more true of Islam than it is of Christianity, right? So if this is any sort of criterion, then Islam would be closer to the "True Faith" than Christianity could ever be. And that's even granting the "historical accuracy" part.

So when will you be converting to Islam?

Would it be too much to ask that you clean up that crap from those quotes of yours?

I don't know.

And "=Beginning of quote.
"=End of quote

 

[BobK]

That would be great if I saw a literal " but what I'm seeing is an ampersand, the letters "rsquo" and a semicolon, etc. Yeah I know it's supposed to be HTML markup. But bulletin boards routinely escape stuff like that.

 

[homeforsummer]

That would be great if I saw a literal " but what I'm seeing is an ampersand, the letters "rsquo" and a semicolon, etc. Yeah I know it's supposed to be HTML markup. But bulletin boards routinely escape stuff like that.

That, and it's still a large wall of text entirely cribbed from somewhere else, without rhyme or reason (nor source, even if the author's name is listed).

If GTPlanet were an essay, that post would have sent alarm bells ringing with the plagiarism software. TankAss - Using quotes to illustrate a point is fine, using quotes instead of making your own point isn't.

Again - please do us the respect of conducting this discussion in a suitable manner. That means making at least some effort to address someone's point if they've addressed you, and not posting the Great Wall Of Text instead of your own points.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Homicide. You can't kill your own children.

But more seriously... define "something"... If you're talking about something that thinks and feels, then yes, the law protects things that think and feel and that are not human.

Increasingly, we are seeing the rise of sentience laws that recognize the rights of animals which are not as intelligent as humans but which are obviously thinking and feeling creatures.

There have been proposals for sentience laws for artificial intelligences (both serious and not), which would protect the rights of any artificial intelligence created by man... which could be similar to laws we have in place that protect the rights of the artificial personalities that we've already created.

Artificial personalities? Yup. Corporations.

Corporate laws are there to protect the rights and to define the wrongs for legal entities that are not human but which are created by humans, so yes, you could say that there are laws regarding "things you create"... though if you start a corporation, as long as you still have control and a majority share in it, you can legally dissolve it, but it has to be done in a very specific manner.

Of course, since true artificial sentience is still decades away, we currently have no laws, but believe me, we will have them when we start getting close to the threshold.

My children are not my creation even though I had a part in it. I have no power to resurrect them either.

Corporation involved others besides myself. Obviously if I created a new invention then collect capital from shareholders to produce and sell my invention then there are laws to protect the shareholder's investment.

Now I don't know what the future holds but as of now if I create a virtual world on my PC i can do what I please with it. I can even take a hammer and smash my PC,TV,etc. in a million pieces as long it's totally mine.

 

[Strittan]

Tell me exactly what I need to understand. What do you mean?

You need to understand that religion can be wrong, because at the moment you don't seem to understand that.

 

[niky]

I think that if I were to ever choose to follow a religion, it'd be Buddhism.

I've said it once, I'll say it again... any religion that forbids garlic and thus leaves you vulnerable to vampires can't be all good.

But Buddhism is one of the few major religions that has not inspired its followers to wage war on other religions, and I totally dig that.

(2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself

This is where you (or Mr. Lewis) fail.

The whole quote, though? Complete and utter failure. A triumph of prejudice and cultural relativism over reality. Sort of like the good master justifying slavery.

"I feed them, I clothe them, they call me sir, I call all the shots... they don't mind... so what's wrong with that?"

Would such a man feel differently if he were a woman from a society where women are granted equal rights? If you say no, then you really don't have a clue.

My children are not my creation even though I had a part in it. I have no power to resurrect them either.

Corporation involved others besides myself. Obviously if I created a new invention then collect capital from shareholders to produce and sell my invention then there are laws to protect the shareholder's investment.

Now I don't know what the future holds but as of now if I create a virtual world on my PC i can do what I please with it. I can even take a hammer and smash my PC,TV,etc. in a million pieces as long it's totally mine.

It doesn't matter. They're sapient, you made them. If by having "no hand in their creation" you mean that it was the fertilized zygote and your wife's womb that did all the work, that still doesn't absolve you of responsibility for their birth.

Corporations are a tricky business. They are legally a separate entity from the founder and investors, which is why some businessmen, even if they are the sole investor, create their business as a corporation and bring in minor investors (I have zero money-out shares in some). As a separate legal entity, corporations also have legal rights.

You can smash your computer because, as of now, we are not even remotely close to creating a sapient or even a basically sentient program. Yet we recognize that less intelligent life forms have rights (in a limited sort of way).

And we didn't even create them.

I ask, isn't it strange that some men (but not all, and not all to the same degree) can be more humane than "God" when dealing with lesser creatures? There is no dobut that when we get close, there will be legislation protecting the rights of sapient AI.

Resurrection? Resurrection only comes into play if you can demonstrate it. So far, our only examples are Lazarus (who's now dead anyway) and Jesus (who supposedly was divine, so he doesn't count). But we can kill and "resurrect" people and animals, mind you... Resurrection is something you're taught in first-aid courses at school.

 

[CSLACR]

You obviously do not understand the relationship between the New Testament and the Old Testament.

I understand exactly the relationship between the new and old testaments.
Judaism follows the old testament, and Christianity claims to follow "both", but the reality is they just follow parts they like of the old, primarily new testament though.

Nobody wants to hear about stoning their misbehaving children in the streets if they continue to act out of line. (See kids that get sent to boot camp, the worst of the worst, not kids that break curfew once)
Nobody wants to hear that a woman raped is useless and should be cast out.
Nobody wants to hear women are inferior and must listen to their master, the husband. (well, TankAss does, but most Christians won't admit this)
Nobody wants to hear that God prefers Jewish people over all others. (Jesus pretty conveniently changed that, even though he's the same being, but not, cause they talked, still not clear there - yes, Jesus prayed, wait, wuuuuut?!?!?)

I understand the old and new testaments just fine. it's the line between where the Bible does, and does not agree on who God is.
It was you or TankAss talking about how great it is that "men who never met wrote, etc, etc", well, the old and new testament is where you can tell people dropped the ball on communication, and everything gets double crossed.
God is in the old testament, and he fights fire with fire, and smites people that piss him off.
Jesus is in the new testament, and he turns the other cheek.

Since they're one and the same, apparently they/he have an obvious multiple personality complex going on.

Do you eat ham? I know many Christians love ham to celebrate - most ironic - Christian holidays.
Sign me up, I love ham too.

 

[homeforsummer]

I've said it once, I'll say it again... any religion that forbids garlic and thus leaves you vulnerable to vampires can't be all good.

There's always the stake-through-the-heart option. Since vampires are technically the undead, killing them wouldn't be classed as harming another living thing under Buddhism

But Buddhism is one of the few major religions that has not inspired its followers to wage war on other religions, and I totally dig that.

Quite. There's no hypocrisy unlike with many other religions.

 

[BobK]

I believe that the Bible is correct....

That brings up something else. You've cited the Bible on a number of occasions (and when called on it because the Biblical quote did not back up your claim, tried to weasel out of it by claiming the Bible does not mean what it clearly says, but that's neither here nor there right now) and I have to ask, which Bible? The Catholic Bible? Eastern Orthodox Bible? The one used by many Protestant denominations? The Mormon Bible? Jehovah's Witnesses? And the followup question: why whichever version you choose?

 

[Sach]

I understand exactly the relationship between the new and old testaments.
Judaism follows the old testament, and Christianity claims to follow "both", but the reality is they just follow parts they like of the old, primarily new testament though.

Nobody wants to hear about stoning their misbehaving children in the streets if they continue to act out of line. (See kids that get sent to boot camp, the worst of the worst, not kids that break curfew once)
Nobody wants to hear that a woman raped is useless and should be cast out.
Nobody wants to hear women are inferior and must listen to their master, the husband. (well, TankAss does, but most Christians won't admit this)
Nobody wants to hear that God prefers Jewish people over all others. (Jesus pretty conveniently changed that, even though he's the same being, but not, cause they talked, still not clear there - yes, Jesus prayed, wait, wuuuuut?!?!?)

I understand the old and new testaments just fine. it's the line between where the Bible does, and does not agree on who God is.
It was you or TankAss talking about how great it is that "men who never met wrote, etc, etc", well, the old and new testament is where you can tell people dropped the ball on communication, and everything gets double crossed.
God is in the old testament, and he fights fire with fire, and smites people that piss him off.
Jesus is in the new testament, and he turns the other cheek.

Since they're one and the same, apparently they/he have an obvious multiple personality complex going on.

Do you eat ham? I know many Christians love ham to celebrate - most ironic - Christian holidays.
Sign me up, I love ham too.

You've mistaken their relationship again.

 

[TankAss95]

That brings up something else. You've cited the Bible on a number of occasions (and when called on it because the Biblical quote did not back up your claim, tried to weasel out of it by claiming the Bible does not mean what it clearly says, but that's neither here nor there right now) and I have to ask, which Bible? The Catholic Bible? Eastern Orthodox Bible? The one used by many Protestant denominations? The Mormon Bible? Jehovah's Witnesses? And the followup question: why whichever version you choose?

Personally I use the New Living Translation. I find the text easier to read.

 

[Bobalob]

Personally I use the New Living Translation. I find the text easier to read.

not the translation of a translated translation then?

 

[TankAss95]

not the translation of a translated translation then?

I don't think the problem with the translations of the Bible are particularly the text used, it is rather the versus and chapters that was used to divide the Bible where many people argue over.

Anyway I thought I would share this link:
http://www.creatingfutures.net/crucifixion.html
It contains gruesome descriptions, so only go if you feel comfortable with that.

For Christians, the crucifixion is the heart of their faith. Obviously any evidence for Jesus would be worthwhile in this debate.

 

[Liquid]

You think if Jesus ever came back he wants to see a ******* cross?

.

 

[Exorcet]

Slightly off topic but,

If the Bible is true, then Jesus birth, Crucifixion, and Resurrection are true. Some will argue that you can't trust the Bible because it was written by those who believed in Jesus. If you use this argument regarding biographies and history books (this is what the Four Gospels are like), you see how foolish it is. Many biographies are written by people who loved the person they are writing about, but we do not question their validity.

That's not how you read a book, especially historical texts.

 

[TankAss95]

Slightly off topic but,

That's not how you read a book, especially historical texts.

What I would like to know is if there are any actual evidence for Jesus (particularly his crucifixion, regardless if he was really the Son of God, Insane, or whatever.

 

[huskeR32]

You've mistaken their relationship again.

Mind explaining the correct interpretation of their relationship then?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

I understand exactly the relationship between the new and old testaments.
Judaism follows the old testament, and Christianity claims to follow "both", but the reality is they just follow parts they like of the old, primarily new testament though.

Nobody wants to hear about stoning their misbehaving children in the streets if they continue to act out of line. (See kids that get sent to boot camp, the worst of the worst, not kids that break curfew once)
Nobody wants to hear that a woman raped is useless and should be cast out.
Nobody wants to hear women are inferior and must listen to their master, the husband. (well, TankAss does, but most Christians won't admit this)
Nobody wants to hear that God prefers Jewish people over all others. (Jesus pretty conveniently changed that, even though he's the same being, but not, cause they talked, still not clear there - yes, Jesus prayed, wait, wuuuuut?!?!?)

I understand the old and new testaments just fine. it's the line between where the Bible does, and does not agree on who God is.
It was you or TankAss talking about how great it is that "men who never met wrote, etc, etc", well, the old and new testament is where you can tell people dropped the ball on communication, and everything gets double crossed.
God is in the old testament, and he fights fire with fire, and smites people that piss him off.
Jesus is in the new testament, and he turns the other cheek.

Obviously you don't seem to understand the OT. What you are doing just like in Job is picking out verses out of their context. Note the books were not written in chapters and verses. They were adding in later for reference.

For example there is no mention of someone stoning their child for disobedience but there is some mentioning of child being offered up to idols. The Law demand death which is why Moses pointed to the Messiah. The Law couldn't save anyone which was one of it's main purpose.
Then there were laws for the nation Israel how to govern.

 

[CSLACR]

Obviously you don't seem to understand the OT. What you are doing just like in Job is picking out verses out of their context. Note the books were not written in chapters and verses. They were adding in later for reference.

For example there is no mention of someone stoning their child for disobedience but there is some mentioning of child being offered up to idols. The Law demand death which is why Moses pointed to the Messiah. The Law couldn't save anyone which was one of it's main purpose.
Then there were laws for the nation Israel how to govern.

You should know what you're talking about before you make such presumptions. Maybe try reading the Bible more then atheists. 💡
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death."

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

You should know what you're talking about before you make such presumptions. Maybe try reading the Bible more then atheists. 💡
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death."

By the letter of the law adultery demand death as well (and the other 9 commandments) but again Israel couldn't keep the law which was exactly what God said when they claim they could. By the law no man would be saved.
You didn't show me an example where parent stone their rebellious son.

 

[CSLACR]

By the letter of the law adultery demand death as well (and the other 9 commandments) but again Israel couldn't keep the law which was exactly what God said when they claim they could. By the law no man would be saved.
You didn't show me an example where parent stone their rebellious son.

You could quote some scripture if you feel I'm actually taking things out of context. 💡

Show me where these things were said.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

You could quote some scripture if you feel I'm actually taking things out of context. 💡

Show me where these things were said.

The common theme even in the first five books of the Bible is either God will be your judge or He will be redeemer. If He is your judge as you stand on your own righteousness you will be judge strictly by the law (as well as your own judgements). That's the whole point of putting the lamb's blood on the door post in Egypt to let death pass. This happen before giving of the law.
Even if you don't believe in the Bible that teaching is all through the OT.

 

[TankAss95]

Amazing video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gefA3f0n3OY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Of course this is only relevant if Jesus was actually a real person. Historical evidence apart from Bible scripture is supposedly available, yet I have yet to find any unbiased sources.

 

[niky]

There is evidence in writings by other (non-Christian) writers and religious leaders from around the time, but mostly secondhand accounts from Christians living around the time of Christ. Oh... and of course, Jesus is mentioned as a Jewish prophet in the Qu'ran.

There is little doubt that a holy man lived at the time and had followers who later on claimed his divinity. I've seen some studies where they have been trying to find the identity of the historical Jesus, and where they suggest that he might have been inspired by several religious leaders... though I doubt the latter... I feel it's probable there was a single charismatic leader with a compelling personality who was the source of Christianity... but then, I'm not a Bible scholar.

 

[TankAss95]

There is evidence in writings by other (non-Christian) writers and religious leaders from around the time, but mostly secondhand accounts from Christians living around the time of Christ.

There is little doubt that a holy man lived at the time and had followers who later on claimed his divinity. I've seen some studies where they have been trying to find the identity of the historical Jesus, and where they suggest that he might have been inspired by several religious leaders... though I doubt the latter... I feel it's probable there was a single charismatic leader with a compelling personality who was the source of Christianity... but then, I'm not a Bible scholar.

I've heard about 500 eyewitness written statements of Jesus's crucifixion. Many theists have used this in debates, yet I have not found this information.
You may find this nonsense, but I find the gospels filled with such life, nothing like anything else I've ever read. Every part of me says that it is surely more than just a myth. I was also surprised at the accuracy of the Biblical account of the crucifixion (link above). The detail of events I find shocking.
Keeping my beliefs aside, if Jesus was actually real, I agree with C. S. Lewis that he was not a good moral teacher. He was either a lier, a lunatic, or the Son of God. A good moral teacher wouldn't lie.

 

[CSLACR]

I've heard about 500 eyewitness written statements of Jesus's crucifixion. Many theists have used this in debates, yet I have not found this information.
You may find this nonsense, but I find the gospels filled with such life, nothing like anything else I've ever read. Every part of me says that it is surely more than just a myth. I was also surprised at the accuracy of the Biblical account of the crucifixion (link above). The detail of events I find shocking.
Keeping my beliefs aside, if Jesus was actually real, I agree with C. S. Lewis that he was not a good moral teacher. He was either a lier, a lunatic, or the Son of God. A good moral teacher wouldn't lie.

I don't understand why it would be difficult to write down a crucifixion story. They weren't incredibly rare, so I'm unsure why you find it so surprising the accuracy.

 

[BobK]

Personally I use the New Living Translation. I find the text easier to read.

Okay, but which (whose?) Bible is it? You do realize that some Christian Bibles consist of 66 books, while other Christian Bibles consist of 81? With other numbers in between for various sects?