Do you believe in God?

[Yttrium99]

As the son of God, He would be able to show the example by which men live


Again, I'm not sure. This evolves in Christian societies by virtue of a consensus. Christ preached forgiveness and the golden rule, and this message influences our laws.


God isn't human. The rules are for humans.

God sent Jesus to show mere sinful humans how to live, then he completely clashes with the Bible, we've come across a major problem. Again, Jesus not only went against the old Testament, he even sinned on many occasions. No where did any part of the Bible mention that any certain conscious and sentient being got any form of a pass on these rules, God included. This means, of course, because Jesus sinned, he wasn't perfect, and the statement "Jesus lived a sinless life for us" was not true, because he did sin, and it also implies that God himself, the creator of everything, the ultimate, is also, not perfect.

Also, to address your comment about a "Christian consensus", the Bible doesn't let that fly either. In the Bible, it gave some clear cut rules that didn't have an expiration date, that did not have exceptions, and that did not leave it to the people to decide. Of course, some verses and rules are a little vague, but they're still there, still unbending to sny situation, and should, in theory, still be in place, not tossed out the window because the class had a vote against something they didn't like.

 

[Danoff]

I was washing my car in my driveway yesterday and couldn't help but overhear a lengthy conversation wafting across the street from my neighbor's driveway. They were having a conversation about church and belief and god and "inner strength". I know that when you're close to anything that it normalizes that thing. Christianity for many people in the US is just normal... taken at face value. If you're religious, you can't possibly know what it's like to be an atheist and overhear your conversations. But just to give it a shot, I want you to imagine that you're minding your own business and hear a conversation like this:

Jane: I went to the local noddle bowl last week, and there was a sermon about finding inner strength.
Marsha: His noodly appendage works in mysterious ways.
Jane: Do you ever question the one true pasta?
Marsha: It's our place to have faith that the noodly one is up there watching over us.
Jane: Sometimes I'm not sure that I'm eating enough spaghetti, or the right kind.
Marsha: Try to focus on the love and happiness that His noodly appendage has brought you and you'll feel powerful inner strength flowing from within. That's his love. It's our job to spread his pasta sauce throughout the world to enrich everyone's lives.

To be honest, it sounds significantly weirder than that to me, because what I wrote above has a lot more in common with Christianity than atheism. Imagine that almost everyone you knew gathered together on Wednesday afternoon at 3:15 pm every week to eat pasta and worship the giant spaghetti in the sky. You're just being yourself on Wednesday afternoon at work and suddenly everyone is gone to the same building they call the noddle bowl to eat spaghetti and worship a giant bowl of spaghetti. That's what it feels like on Sunday morning (which is lovely because no crowds).

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

His kid was - and Christians believe that his kid was also God.

I'm not following. Did Jesus break the Ten Commandments?

You still haven't shown where, in the book you get the rules from, the rules are made species-specific.

I thought it was made clear in Exodus that they were for humans, as in they were passed from God to Moses.

Who should then?

Or is God above judgement and if so, why?

Interesting question. I believe God is above judgement since we will never be divine and therefore never in a position to judge.

God sent Jesus to show mere sinful humans how to live, then he completely clashes with the Bible, we've come across a major problem. Again, Jesus not only went against the old Testament, he even sinned on many occasions. No where did any part of the Bible mention that any certain conscious and sentient being got any form of a pass on these rules, God included. This means, of course, because Jesus sinned, he wasn't perfect, and the statement "Jesus lived a sinless life for us" was not true, because he did sin, and it also implies that God himself, the creator of everything, the ultimate, is also, not perfect.

Where did he sin?

Also, to address your comment about a "Christian consensus", the Bible doesn't let that fly either. In the Bible, it gave some clear cut rules that didn't have an expiration date, that did not have exceptions, and that did not leave it to the people to decide. Of course, some verses and rules are a little vague, but they're still there, still unbending to sny situation, and should, in theory, still be in place, not tossed out the window because the class had a vote against something they didn't like.

But that goes against how the world evolved, and against Christ's message (and actions)

 

[Famine]

I'm not following. Did Jesus break the Ten Commandments?

I'd say yes, but then it's your book so you would know better.

I thought it was made clear in Exodus that they were for humans, as in they were passed from God to Moses.

Well, surely you don't have to think it was made clear if it was actually made clear?

Does it say at any point that the rules are for people and not dogs, or robots, or deities?

 

[Scaff]

I'm not following. Did Jesus break the Ten Commandments?

Arguably the first four, certainly from a Jewish perspective he certainly did.

I thought it was made clear in Exodus that they were for humans, as in they were passed from God to Moses.

Then you will have no problem providingthe details of the verse in question.

Fun fact. No archaeological evidence at all exists for the Exodus, not a bit.

Interesting question. I believe God is above judgement since we will never be divine and therefore never in a position to judge.

Convenient how religion works like that isn't it?

Where did he sin?

He broke the Sabbath, he committed violence against people, the livestock of an entire village and killed a plant because it wouldn't give him fruit! The latter of which can be looked at two ways, either its literal and an example of petty spite and avarice; or it not literal and its about the Jews not accepting him as the Messiah, in which case it goes against the first four of the ten commandments.

But that goes against how the world evolved, and against Christ's message (and actions)

The Bible doesn't say the world evolved.

Oh and Jesus himself contradicted his own message with his actions repeatedly.

 

[Imari]

Interesting question. I believe God is above judgement since we will never be divine and therefore never in a position to judge.

Interesting response. So the ability to judge requires one to be more powerful than that which you are judging.

That's awfully close to "might makes right", that is.

 

[Yttrium99]

I'm not following. Did Jesus break the Ten Commandments?


I thought it was made clear in Exodus that they were for humans, as in they were passed from God to Moses.


Interesting question. I believe God is above judgement since we will never be divine and therefore never in a position to judge.


Where did he sin?


But that goes against how the world evolved, and against Christ's message (and actions)

To address your final statement, the Bible doesn't make mention of an expiration date. Again, the rules should stay the same. This, added with the fact that Jesus sinned (as explained by Scaff (thank you)) brings up the issue of either the entire Bible being outdated and incredible, or the entire world has been living in sin and Jesus himself was incapable of being above it.

 

[Danoff]

He broke the Sabbath, he committed violence against people, the livestock of an entire village and killed a plant because it wouldn't give him fruit! The latter of which can be looked at two ways, either its literal and an example of petty spite and avarice; or it not literal and its about the Jews not accepting him as the Messiah, in which case it goes against the first four of the ten commandments.

Are we talking about Yahweh's first set or second set (pretty different)? If we're talking about the second set, are we talking Orthodox, Philo, Samaritan, Talmund, Augustine, Catechism, Lutheran, or Reformed (I'm just reading off the Wikipedia list)? Cause there are some differences in the first 4 among those.

It seems like you indicated that you were going for the Jewish version - so we're talking version 2.0, Talmund.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

I'd say yes, but then it's your book so you would know better.

Well, surely you don't have to think it was made clear if it was actually made clear?

Does it say at any point that the rules are for people and not dogs, or robots, or deities?

Surely the context of the preceding chapters implies it is for the followers of God. The actual chapter starts with.

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."

God then references the Ten Commandments saying "You will not do such and such"

Arguably the first four, certainly from a Jewish perspective he certainly did.

Could I ask where this happened

Then you will have no problem providingthe details of the verse in question.

Fun fact. No archaeological evidence at all exists for the Exodus, not a bit.

See my answer for Famine

He broke the Sabbath, he committed violence against people, the livestock of an entire village and killed a plant because it wouldn't give him fruit! The latter of which can be looked at two ways, either its literal and an example of petty spite and avarice; or it not literal and its about the Jews not accepting him as the Messiah, in which case it goes against the first four of the ten commandments.

The first one is from a chapter where it says "Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath". As for violence against people I think you're talking about using a whip to drive people out of the temple - which at no point says he struck anyone. Livestock and plant killing aren't sins I would say for the Son of God.

"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth."

I'm sure I understand what you mean about the non-literal take.

The Bible doesn't say the world evolved.

Oh and Jesus himself contradicted his own message with his actions repeatedly.

How so?

Interesting response. So the ability to judge requires one to be more powerful than that which you are judging.

That's awfully close to "might makes right", that is.

No because humans are all equal. God is in a plane above us, and therefore above judgment. I would think all religions are like that.

To address your final statement, the Bible doesn't make mention of an expiration date. Again, the rules should stay the same. This, added with the fact that Jesus sinned (as explained by Scaff (thank you)) brings up the issue of either the entire Bible being outdated and incredible, or the entire world has been living in sin and Jesus himself was incapable of being above it.

I wouldn't say outdated, but we have been given a model in how to live through Jesus Christ. This means certain parts of the Bible are up for discussion in how they fit for the laws of man

 

[Famine]

Surely the context of the preceding chapters implies it is for the followers of God. The actual chapter starts with.

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."

God then references the Ten Commandments saying "You will not do such and such"

Here's your problem:

Surely the context of the preceding chapters implies it is

There's a whole bunch of supposition there and not a lot of absolute clarity. At no point does God say that the Ten Commandments are for humans only - even though he's entirely capable of specifically pointing out that the fourth one applies to cows too.

And in the King James Version, he says 'thou', which is second person singular, rather than you - so the rules may only apply to Moses.

Which is half of the problem with translations.

 

[Imari]

As for violence against people I think you're talking about using a whip to drive people out of the temple - which at no point says he struck anyone.

If he didn't strike anyone, he's not using a whip, is he?

No because humans are all equal. God is in a plane above us, and therefore above judgment. I would think all religions are like that.

You really don't think about these things before you say them, do you? God is above us, therefore God may judge us. But we may not judge him. That right there is "the might is right". God has the power, so God makes the rules.

If there were a being on a plane above God, would they get to judge God? I know you're going to say that nobody could be above God because he's God, but humour me for a second and actually think about the question.

What if there was someone on the same plane as God, like Jesus? There are instances of Jesus praying and talking to God, so clearly they're separate enough to have a conversation. Can Jesus judge God?

Besides, humans are not all equal in the eyes of God. God makes a significant distinction between those who worship Him and those who do not. You may have noticed.

 

[Scaff]

Could I ask where this happened

Do we really need to have the entire Jews don't see him as the messiah conversation again?

By claiming to be so he breaks the first four quite clearly.

See my answer for Famine

Which doesn't answer it at all.

Not to mention it starts with the assumption that the exodus happened, which has no evidence to support it.

The first one is from a chapter where it says "Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath".

You just illustrated why he broken the first four.

As for violence against people I think you're talking about using a whip to drive people out of the temple - which at no point says he struck anyone.

Please explain exactly how he did it without resorting to any form of violence. Oh I would strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the location this event occurred at and the number of people involved.

As the last person who made such a claim came rather unstuck when they failed to do so.

Livestock and plant killing aren't sins I would say for the Son of God.

Why do you get to say?

Killing the entire livestock of a community would have effectively sentenced them to death at the time in question!

"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth."

I'm sure I understand what you mean about the non-literal take.

A contradiction/inaccuracy in the Bible, what a shock!

No because humans are all equal. God is in a plane above us, and therefore above judgment. I would think all religions are like that.

Back to this is just a moment....

I wouldn't say outdated, but we have been given a model in how to live through Jesus Christ. This means certain parts of the Bible are up for discussion in how they fit for the laws of man

So God is above Judgement, but his word (and the Bible is supposed to be his word) is open for Judgement?

The level of hypocrisy in that is stunning.

 

[Dennisch]

What if there was someone on the same plane as God, like Jesus? There are instances of Jesus praying and talking to God, so clearly they're separate enough to have a conversation. Can Jesus judge God?

Jesus is on that plane as Jesus is God. And thus he talks to himself, and he can probably judge himself. It's in the bible.

 

[Imari]

Jesus is on that plane as Jesus is God. And thus he talks to himself, and he can probably judge himself. It's in the bible.

I agree, but I'm specifically interested in what @DLR_Mysterion thinks. He's the one claiming that we cannot judge God because we're only human. Is it acceptable to be an equal to judge another, or must one be superior?

 

[Dennisch]

I agree, but I'm specifically interested in what @DLR_Mysterion thinks. He's the one claiming that we cannot judge God because we're only human. Is it acceptable to be an equal to judge another, or must one be superior?

Matthew 7:1

Judge not, that you be not judged.

Us puny humans can't judge anyone.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Here's your problem:

There's a whole bunch of supposition there and not a lot of absolute clarity. At no point does God say that the Ten Commandments are for humans only - even though he's entirely capable of specifically pointing out that the fourth one applies to cows too.

And in the King James Version, he says 'thou', which is second person singular, rather than you - so the rules may only apply to Moses.

Which is half of the problem with translations.

It's up for interpretation, I don't disagree with that - a lot of the Bible is. However it's generally recognised to be "species specific". Animals, such as cows we have domain over so its hard to see how the rules given to us should apply to cows. Same (but in the other direction) with God.

By claiming to be so he breaks the first four quite clearly.

But that would be according to Jews....I'm not Jewish

Which doesn't answer it at all.

Not to mention it starts with the assumption that the exodus happened, which has no evidence to support it.

We can't have evidence for everything in the Bible. In fact I'll concede we have little evidence on most of what Jesus did.

You just illustrated why he broken the first four.

Not really. He kept it Holy and worked during it because He had the power to.

Please explain exactly how he did it without resorting to any form of violence. Oh I would strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with the location this event occurred at and the number of people involved.

As the last person who made such a claim came rather unstuck when they failed to do so.

Why does your first instinct tell you he struck someone. Where does it say that in the Bible?

Why do you get to say?

Killing the entire livestock of a community would have effectively sentenced them to death at the time in question!

Hmmm, I'm not sure He would be sentencing someone to death.

So God is above Judgement, but his word (and the Bible is supposed to be his word) is open for Judgement?

The level of hypocrisy in that is stunning.

If you remember this started when I was talking about God's actions. I've repeatedly said that I believe we can judge which rules are relevant to us by societal evolution. These are separate things.

If he didn't strike anyone, he's not using a whip, is he?

Why, you can't whip inanimate objects to drive people out?

You really don't think about these things before you say them, do you? God is above us, therefore God may judge us. But we may not judge him. That right there is "the might is right". God has the power, so God makes the rules.

Your use of the word was blatantly in a human context, i.e. people in higher positions should be able to judge. This goes against the Bible's teaching and the law in that when we commit a crime we are judged by our peers.

If there were a being on a plane above God, would they get to judge God? I know you're going to say that nobody could be above God because he's God, but humour me for a second and actually think about the question.

What if there was someone on the same plane as God, like Jesus? There are instances of Jesus praying and talking to God, so clearly they're separate enough to have a conversation. Can Jesus judge God?

Yes, because He is divine.

Besides, humans are not all equal in the eyes of God. God makes a significant distinction between those who worship Him and those who do not. You may have noticed.

But that is talking about at judgement, and after they have either chosen to listen or ignore God and Christ's message.

Here's some verses:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-equality/

 

[Scaff]

But that would be according to Jews....I'm not Jewish

Nice strawman.

Jesus was, and you were not alive at the time, as such your faith is utterly immaterial to a discussion of if Jesus broke any of the (at the time) 100% Jewish ten commandments.

We can't have evidence for everything in the Bible. In fact I'll concede we have little evidence on most of what Jesus did.

A rather large difference exists between evidence for a single person and the mass migration of over a million people!

They must have done an excellent job of cleaning up, not to mention the managed to remove all trace of the impact that many people had leaving Eygpt (it would have been a significant percentage of the population and the Egyptians were very good record keepers) or the impact they had on arrival.

Not really. He kept it Holy and worked during it because He had the power to.

Not at the time he didn't. At the time he was considered, by the religion of the holy text that wrote the rules, to be a false prophet.

Why does your first instinct tell you he struck someone. Where does it say that in the Bible?

Nice attempt to avoid the question I asked.

Please explain to me how he managed to drive 300,000 people out of an area bigger than 20 American football fields without resorting to any form of violence and/aggression?

Oh and what happened to 'turn the other cheek'.

Hmmm, I'm not sure He would be sentencing someone to death.

]Then to be blunt you have no idea what you are talking about. People who earn there livelihood from farming pigs are not going to be impacted by the death of all the livestock they own? Wat kind of welfare state do you think existed at the time?

Not only that, it wasn't even Jesus's idea, Legion (the name of the deamon who had possessed the man) asked to be put into the herd of pigs rather than be cast back into hell.

So Jesus is quite happy to grant the last request of a deamon even if it means the destruction of the livelihood of an entire group of people. No wonder they then asked him to piss off.

If you remember this started when I was talking about God's actions. I've repeatedly said that I believe we can judge which rules are relevant to us by societal evolution. These are separate things.

They are only separate if the Bible isn't the word of God. If it is then in picking which ones you want to follow and which ones you don;t, you are judging God.

Why, you can't whip inanimate objects to drive people out?

Because its not an effective way of clearing 300,000 people from an area the size of 20 American football fields.

 

[Famine]

It's up for interpretation, I don't disagree with that - a lot of the Bible is.

Then you're not following the word of your deity, rather the word of whomever interpreted it for you.

How do you think your deity would react to that when sitting in judgment over you? He sent you an actual book with actual instructions, but instead you just went with whatever someone else told you it really meant...

However it's generally recognised to be "species specific".

By whom? Why? On what evidence?

Animals, such as cows we have domain over so its hard to see how the rules given to us should apply to cows.

And yet cows are specifically named in one of the commandments.

Same (but in the other direction) with God.

And yet you've supplied no evidence that the rules only apply to humans. And you only have one source for your evidence. Either it's not there or you're not trying to find it. If it's not there, in your one source, which you believe is the word of your deity and book of instructions that guides your entire life, you're literally making up a belief to suit you.

 

[Imari]

Why, you can't whip inanimate objects to drive people out?

Not really. You can whip inanimate objects to drive children or idiots out, but a crowd of adults is probably not going to run from one lunatic with a whip. Especially not a large crowd.

Yes, because He is divine.

What are you answering with this? Yes, Jesus could judge God because He (Jesus) is divine? Yes, Jesus could judge God because He (God) is divine? Yes, a being higher than God could judge God because He (the higher being) is divine? Yes, a being higher than God could judge God because He (God) is divine?

A little specificity in your answers would go a long way.

But that is talking about at judgement, and after they have either chosen to listen or ignore God and Christ's message.

Here's some verses:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-equality/

Rofl. I got as far as the first one. No partiality and accepts no bribes? No bribes, unless they're in the coin of worship, eh?

Pull the other one. A bribe can totally be paid in service rather than cash. He's entirely partial to people who do what He says. He will heal them and bring them wealth and happiness in this life, if you believe Christians who pray to Him for intercession. The Abrahamic God is one of the least impartial that I can think of, He's entirely based on the fact that unless you believe in Him and obey His rules then you don't get a whole bunch of cool stuff, both in this life and the next.



At least the Greek Gods were fickle, arrogant, violent arsenuggets to pretty much everyone.

 

[Yttrium99]

But that would be according to Jews....I'm not Jewish

You do realize Christianity is the second Abrahamic faith, right? It builds itself from the old Testament, and pretty much, in itself, is Judaism+Jesus.

Ten commandments also aren't specifically for Jewish people. Christians are not exempt from the Ten Commandments. As you're well aware, they're in the Bible, and as I've stated multiple times, they don't have an expiration date. Jesus, as a man, if he were to be setting an example, couldn't do that with events like working on the Sabbath.

 

[Scaff]

Advocacy for Christian violence.

“only thing that is going to save Western civilization is a more aggressive, a more violent Christianity.”

http://deadstate.org/christian-radi...ianforte-we-need-a-more-violent-christianity/

 

[Dotini]

Advocacy for Christian violence.

“only thing that is going to save Western civilization is a more aggressive, a more violent Christianity.”

Don't you think Darwin would agree? Isn't the story of civilization a struggle for survival, where some nations, peoples, and religions perish along the way? That will certainly continue. When you're old, tired and weak, out of ideas, out of work, out of money and out of luck, it's easier to accept the idea of death. Christianity is old, and not aggressively procreating, senescent and uncompetitive. But there are many sub groups such as Mormon which defy that categorization.

 

[Scaff]

Don't you think Darwin would agree?

No. Why do you think he would?

Isn't the story of civilization a struggle for survival, where some nations, peoples, and religions perish along the way? That will certainly continue. When you're old, tired and weak, out of ideas, out of work, out of money and out of luck, it's easier to accept the idea of death. Christianity is old, and not aggressively procreating, senescent and uncompetitive. But there are many sub groups such as Mormon which defy that categorization.

You seem to be misunderstanding Survival of the Fittest (which Darwin didn't come up with himself).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

 

[Famine]

Isn't the story of civilization a struggle for survival, where some nations, peoples, and religions perish along the way?

Park life.

When you're old, tired and weak, out of ideas, out of work, out of money and out of luck, it's easier to accept the idea of death.

Park life.

Christianity is old, and not aggressively procreating, senescent and uncompetitive.

Park life.

But there are many sub groups such as Mormon which defy that categorization.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I wasn't really sure where to put this next story. The Australia thread seemed the obvious place, but this thread is probably mor appropriate.

Victorian police have ordered Cardinal George Pell to face court on historic child sexual abuse charges:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...-pell-charged-sexual-assault-offences/8547668

Pell is the third highest-ranking member of the Catholic church.

 

[Liquid]

I wasn't really sure where to put this next story. The Australia thread seemed the obvious place, but this thread is probably mor appropriate.

Victorian police have ordered Cardinal George Pell to face court on historic child sexual abuse charges:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...-pell-charged-sexual-assault-offences/8547668

Pell is the third highest-ranking member of the Catholic church.

It's really hard to not be prejudiced with these stories.

Member of the cloth up on nonce charges? Again? Colour me surprised!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Member of the cloth up on nonce charges? Again? Colour me surprised!

It's a big deal because Pell has been investigated time and time again. He's testified before the Royal Commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse allegations, and he's faced a lot of criticism for the way he handled paedophile priests while serving as Archbishop of Melbourne. He's endured it all, but the noose has been steadily closing around him for a while now.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I wasn't really sure where to put this next story. The Australia thread seemed the obvious place, but this thread is probably mor appropriate.

Victorian police have ordered Cardinal George Pell to face court on historic child sexual abuse charges:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...-pell-charged-sexual-assault-offences/8547668

Pell is the third highest-ranking member of the Catholic church.

I'm not sure putting this in the "Do you believe in God" Thread is appropriate. When a story was posted in the Homosexuality Thread about alleged child abuse by a prominent gay politician, we were told it was not the appropriate place to post it and it should be in the America Thread. I'll paraphrase and ask the same question:

Did he being a member of the clergy or his belief in God make him do it? It may have determined his choice of victim, but it's not a causal factor in him committing child sexual assault.

Self answered: Nope, sexual assault has as much, if not more to do with power and control as it does your religious affiliation or occupation.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Christian firm smuggled (potentially) thousands of protected historic items from warzones, says it's because they "love the bible".

 

[JKgo]

Christian firm smuggled (potentially) thousands of protected historic items from warzones, says it's because they "love the bible".

...Well, I'm choosing to look at the matter this way: if it weren't for their religious zeal of believing they were doing the right thing - as well as the contribution from the sizeable wallet - many, if not all, of treasures might have been either lost or destroyed by the hands of ISIS.

Yes, they did a naughty thing but well, those artifacts are now in safer hands, I assume, and are receiving the proper care and attention they deserve.