Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Because your origins, without a Creator, are traced to chance happenstance. That is not able to DO anything. Thus, you do not have the mechanism for the BB. You can only go back to the BB, not the cause of it.
Right. So....what then? I can't tell you what caused the big bang, and the net effect of that on how I live my day to day life is ___________________ .
The difference it makes is whether you build the rest of your worldview on what is true or whether your foundation is suspect and has no visible means of supporting itself. Thus once the winds of testing come it comes crashing down because its foundation (that which everything else rests upon) is weak and faulty.
Sounds dramatic! Except you don't know that your 'worldview' is true either. Let's say I find out the big bang is caused by a gigantic crunch. How will this change anything in my tiny life sapn?
why does anything at all exist?Don't know.Do you have a reason?Again, to make sense of it God would be the necessary explanation.
Do I have a reason anything at all exists? I already said no, when I said "I don't know." Why is your single version of god necessary?
How does the universe begin, if you think it began?All evidence points to time beginning at the big bang. Before that, don't know. In either case, makes no difference to my life every day.You do not perceive of the difference it makes to your life.
You can't say what the difference is either, so...no real difference, we can agree.
Did the universe create itself, and how, why?Don't know.Again, self-creation is a self-refuting concept. Thus, if you believe the universe created itself you are not thinking logically.
I didn't say that's what I think. I said I don't know.
Then don't rule out God. How can you argue against God when you don't know?
I don't rule out supernatural agent out of hand, but I don't rule "in" anything that I can't support existing in a real way (not like SUperman or Thor exist, in a real way, like matter). I can argue against the character in the books with scientific evidence and the many, many logical and factual inconsistencies in the book. It's really pretty simple.
What knowledge are you speaking of?How the universe started.Although you have reason for its beginning how do you KNOW it began the way you think (chance)? What is behind the BB is key?
I don't have a reason for its beginning, and this is where you are getting tripped up constantly: reason and cause are not the same thing. You say you make sense of the universe when what you mean is you assign it a different CAUSE. And I don't know it happened the way the evidence points to it happening, and I don't know why what's "behind the big bang" (whatever this means) would be the key to anything. I ask you again, what difference does it make TODAY, like what do you think people would do differently if the event right before the big bang (if that even makes sense since time starts here, there isn't a before) was suddenly available?
You do not rape because you think raping is wrong. In an indifferent universe what does it matter and why are you making it matter?I don't have the compulsion to rape anyone. Weird, huh?That is not the point, can you give sufficient reason why it is WRONG from your starting point, chance evolutionary processes?
So you want me to explain why it's wrong to rape someone? Start with that it's against that person's will.
Again, where did God condone rape? Make sure not to misintepreting Scripture?
I guess Christians in general don't accept war brides were no t actually happy to be married to their captors, and sexual congress with them was against their will making it rape. And god said to take war brides. Anyway.
Or was beating your wife always wrong?
Now you might be confusing 'legal' with 'moral.' I don't think it was ever moral, but society hasn't always made it illegal. Sort of like another biblically sanctined move, the owning of other people like property: never moral, at one time legal. But the bible has laws about how to do it right. Is it ever MORAL to own another person, beat your wife or stone a homosexual in the street. That's the real question. No on all three for me, but your god compels all three, not to mention the slaughter of women and children if they aren't hebrew.
Why should I believe it?Well you don't want to go to jail, right?Is jail the criterion? If a person can get away without going to jail, it would not be wrong, correct?
That's not what you asked, you asked why YOU should believe rape is wrong, and I said you don't want to go to jail. That seems a decent deterrent without having to explain to you the concept of domain over one's own body, etc. And besides, you are doing all the Jesus stuff so you can get into heaven, but also to avoid hell, right? It seems like this sort of thinking, the carrot or the stick, is what you are basing your current moral decisions on. Given what's at stake, you potentially going out and raping a bunch of people then going to jail, if you suddenly stopped believing in god, it seemed the most prudent path to keep you from becoming a menace.
So, you can't say that torturing little children for fun is plain wrong for everyone?
Torturing little children for fun in plain wrong. What do you know, I CAN say it.
OR, are you agreeing with me that there are universal wrongs?
When did you say there are 'universal wrongs' and how did you decide this?
Created:
And why is that you always want to discuss what the scriptures don't even mention, when questioned on all things biblical?Why is that you prefer to discuss what the biblical authors haven't even written or what biblical characters don't even say?
Two GREAT questions, well done.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
To dismiss this - you will need to demonstrate that God did not have authority to judge and did not have reason to judge. In other words you will need to find that he acted unlawful in his judgment.
Alternatively, you can dismiss it by acknowledging there is literally no evidence that this story, any one part if it, is in any way factual, and that there's still no evidence that the character in question even exists, right? That seems to be an easier option.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
This is an amazing picture of how God deals with mercy and kindness towards even the enemy. And to say otherwise - simply is nonsense.
Agree. SMH.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is not a commandment to rape. If anything, a warning against it.What I'm specifically asking for is a verse where God Commands rape. Not whether or not a Christian man could potentially rape his wife.You're mixing up the idea that a man might potentially rape a woman with God commanding a rape.You're basically accusing me of doing what you're doing. You want me to magically accept your double-standard, when I'm asking you to magically produce a text that at the moment is non-existent.
How is that text a WARNING? It's from god's own command, thou SHALT. I don't want you to get all upset over it, so I can find a compromise: let's say it's not a command, and I'll read it as phis permission, which changes thou shalt into "if you want to." I don't know how the F you read what's there as a warning AGAINST taking a war bride. It's certainly not using anything in the text. Which probably means it's not really worth discussing anything in the actual bible with you, because apparently the words are meaningless, you're allowed to add your interpretation, you're allowed to tell others their interpretation is wrong, without telling why your sis right.
Sound like how one normally meets a wife, right? There's a lot of scholarship on this topic, I'm sure you can google it just as easily as I do.
You asked what the point of this was. The point is to make sure you don't, like so many other Christians do, imply these women fell in love with their new man. These women were captives that god said could be used as sex slaves, which is what a war bride is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
They do so despite the foundation their core beliefs rests upon.
How? And what difference does it make, if they're doing it? Doesn't seem like making sense of origins is hurting their ability to act in this way. Now to your questions.
why does anything at all exist?
Don't know.
How does the universe begin, if you think it began?
All evidence points to time beginning at the big bang. Before that, don't know. In either case, makes no difference to my life every day.
we can trace the universe back to that first cause, but no further. How does that make sense?
Don't know. Again, immaterial to my life.
Did the universe create itself, and how, why?
Don't know.
How did conscious living beings come from non-conscious, nonliving matter?
Don't know.
What knowledge are you speaking of?
How the universe started.
You do not rape because you think raping is wrong. In an indifferent universe what does it matter and why are you making it matter?
I don't have the compulsion to rape anyone. Weird, huh? I also know a lot of non-rapists, and not just atheists. Hindus, Christians of many stripes...I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I doubt many of them would say "God said not to do it so I don't do it." Especially considering god never says in the bile NOT to do it, and in spots seems to condone doing it, provided it's not a hebrew.
In an indifferent universe what is the standard for morality?
There is no standard and there never has been. How do I know? Morality shifts between societies both contemporaneous and in different times, At one time it was moral to beat your wife, and now it isn't.
Whose subjective opinion?
It's not one person. It's society. The one you live in determines it.
Why should I believe it?
Well you don't want to go to jail, right?
You are being inconsistent from your starting point (without God). Why should rape matter in an amoral universe? It is just one member of a species securing their offspring. Ultimately it does not.
You know, now that you've mentionedit like five hundred times, I've decided you make a good point. It DOESN'T matter I guess. Looks like I've got a new plan for my weekend!!! LOOK OUT LADIES! Come on man.
Why are you making meaning matter and seeking meaning if you start with a random chance happenstance universe?
Because I care about my fellow people. Apparently you do it because if you don't you'll be punished forever? if that condition were removed, would you be out raping?
What difference does it ultimately make?
I'm not causing anyone else any harm, that seems pretty good, particularly if I'd rather not have harm done to me. Maybe I don't get the modifier "ultimately" here, maybe you mean something else?
How do you explain justice in a universe devoid of God?
I don't understand why I need to 'explain' justice, I mean do you think it popped into existence with the big bang? Does somehow having the origin of theuniverse knowledge that you have, and I don't, mean you understand justice better? It's sort of a different word for fairness, I guess, but there's also the concept of remediation and punishment in there. Justice is pretty complicated, but it's a human construct (fairness, the simpler version, is not a human construct, animals display a keen understanding of this behavior). Now that I mention it, hyenas understand punishment and rules and morality, too. If a hyena pup steals food before it's his turn to eat, he's punished by being tormented and bitten and outcast even temporarily. That teaches other hyena pups not to do it. They even understand forgiveness, because they've been known to let he pups back into the pack after a time.
All questions answered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I don't think "because God did it" makes sense of anything, it simply assigns a cause out of nowhere.
have you demonstrated you can?
I didn't claim that I could. I am simply wondering why you think this is critical to living life every single day, when clearly so many people mange to do so without sharing your incredible knowledge about origins. This knowledge of yours has no practical impact on your day, as far as I can tell, because I don't make sense of origins and I'm not out raping everything in sight or causing a dystopian hellscape in my neighborhood, and I don't believe in any god at all. You tout "consistent" but don't indicate what an "inconsistent" life would lack that yours has.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
That's a really long way to say "no, I can't."
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Opponents of the Ark theory always exaggerate the number of animals and their size in order to mock the notion completely. For some reason, ridicule is the primary weapon that an anti-Ark person likes to use in their fight. They tend to leave reason and logic behind.
I'm not the one abandoning reason and logic. It only feels like ridicule to have it pointed out to YOU, because you're the one who believes it happened in spite of both logic and evidence being so firmly against your position.
So wait a minute: the story says two of EVERY animal. Right? Sometimes, in some accounts, it's actually more, but let's stick with two of every animal. How is it possible for someone to "exaggerate" the number of animals, or their size? And god must have sent these animals, right? That's how I remember it. So infant animals from all over the earth walked from wherever they were, to wherever the ark was, AS INFANTS in heterosexual pairs? How long do you think it would take, say, a kangaroo baby to walk from Australia to wherever Noah was? Would the kangaroo baby still be a baby when it arrived? Provided it didn't get eaten by any predators, I mean. The concentration of which, by the way, would increase exponentially as they got closer to the ark, right? And how, do you think, or in the Scripture, even better, do you think these animals were fed, considering all their dietary needs are so various? If god didn't send the animals, then the 8 people must have gathered them the old fashioned nonmagical way. How long do you think THAT would have taken?
Of course Noah and his family did have significant knowledge, accumulated over a significant number of years.
I presume you mean of animals, and not just like goats and sheep and the animals that would have been of real concern to people at this time. But also of monkeys, who didn't live in Israel. And koalas, and lemurs, and elephants, and other geographically specific animals. But they had "a significant number of years" to accumulate this knowledge, like where does the 100KG per day of food for one elephant come from if you're on a boat and all it eats are plants. Where do we get he numerous berries that a gorilla requires, and how do we prevent prey species like the only two rabbits left on earth from being eaten by the innumerable forest and plains predators who'd smell them and want to eat them since they can't have any other food? When and where did they acquire this knowledge, do you think, because logically, more than one of them would have to be an expert wood hewer (to make the massive construction materials required), and more than one of them would have to be a master shipwright to be able to build, by hand, a boat that's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high, well enough to stand up to a global flood. The book says it took a 600 year old man and his family six months to build a boat. Do you really want to say you're using logic to support this as a fact? Let me guess: people were somehow different back then! Please support this claim if you make it. Like how you know they were. Which graves have we discovered containing the bodies of people who were hundreds of years old. What DNA study demonstrated this was possible, for example.
Gee how do baby lions do it now without adults around?
Uh, they don't. Baby lions without an adult around get eaten by hyenas. Hyenas would be on the boat, too, right? How fast does a hyena reach maturity compared to a lion?
Can lions eat rotting flesh?
They wouldn't need to. Stand at the end of the ramp from the ark and it's like a buffet line, right?
Are you a guy who believes in evolution? The reason I ask is you either subscribe to an insanely fast version of evolution, because it would have to start after the ark (therby reducing the 9 million species of organisms in the animal kingdom to something more manageable), or you believe that every animal today was actually on the ark.
Please don't say you believe this tale because of logic. You believe it for a lot of reasons, but "it makes logical sense given all we know today"is furthest from the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
To lead a purposeful life in a cosmos of meaninglessness is being inconsistent.
Let's say for the sake of discussion this is the case. How does this negatively affect a person's life in practical day to day terms? You keep saying this as if there's some huge impact, or somehow the life you're living is better or different in some way than the life secular or Skeptic are living. Can you please explain the difference? In other words, PGA's "worldview makes sense of origins, therefore he is able to _____________________, while SecMer is living inconsistently with his worldivew, therefore ________________."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The Bible actually specifically states that each man is judged by their own actions. We do unfortunately suffer consequences from the actions of others. It's really very simple.
Please explain the idea of original sin, if each man is judged by his own actions. I'd love to hear your answer to the question in that post, but I don't expect one. I can get a lot of what you think about it from context.
I'm sorry. Are you under the impression that the woman in the passage in question is not someone practicing indentured servitude?
Does the passage SAY she was an indentured servant? Also, what difference does that make? She is GIVEN to the slave, BY the master. Does she have any say in this transactin, according to the passage you quoted? Can she refuse to marry this servant? I think the answer is probably no, because women didn't have a whole lot of say in how they were handled back then. She's not "asked if she'd like to marry" someone. She's given, perhaps as a perk for the male servant being such a good servant. The sexual congress that necessarily precedes a family, if the woman has no say in if she can have it or not, would be rape. Or ae you of the belief (a Christian belief, BTW) that a husband can't rape his wife?
Also there are several instances in the bible where the Israelits have a holy sanction to tkae the spoils of war as "wives." Again, they don't have a choice, and it's not like the soldiers were switching from conquest to speed dating and chivalry. These women were basically sex slaves. But, since they weren't hebrews, it appears to you this doesn't really matter. But if you'd like a specific verse, check out Deuteronomy 21:10-14:
When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God has delivered them into your hands, and you have taken them captive,And you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her, and take her for a wife -Then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and do her nails,And she shall remove the garment of her captivity from her, and remain in your house and weep for her father and mother a for month, and after that you may approach her and have intercourse with her, and she shall be your wife.And if you do not want her, you shall send her out on her own; you shall not sell her at all for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, because you "violated" her.
Sound like how one normally meets a wife, right? There's a lot of scholarship on this topic, I'm sure you can google it just as easily as I do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
@RoderickSpode
@BrotherDThomas
Wait, so is it okay to violate the commandment prohibiting killing provided you're killing an adulterer or male homosexuals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
For one thing, the wife was provided for by the master. So basically we're talking about a woman who the master has been taken care all along, before she was given as a wife.
So, she was his property, right? THe master's property, to dole out as he pleased? Again, what a pretzel you've twisted yourself into trying to make any of this sound moral. The woman has no choice in the matter, right? THat's moral? Getting raped by her new slave husband is moral? Forget these difficult questions, let's do an easy one.
Where in the bible, in this book we're talking about, does it say "the indentured servant can take his whole family with him provided he can provide for them"? Not necessarily in those words. Just where in the passage are you getting this meaning? I know you have a habit of adding stuff that isn't there, as you did with Elisha (and the mortal threat to his life, your admitted that's your opinion and not in the book at all), is this a similar case, to make that more moral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Why bother with all that?
The rest of your post after this is a distraction and irrelevant. You've really never thought about "why would something that's all powerful require ANY human action on its behalf?" THat seems unusually intellectually lazy of you, I don't get the impression that's how you are. I didn't even ask the harder version: why would anything go wrong to such a degree that an all powerful, all knowing being would get so upset all the time, when he'd have to have known it would happen? I mean this is the font of all morality and goodness according to you, and the first act in the whole myth is him promising to hold all generations accountable for one person's crime, that he KNEW that person would commit when he made him. How's that moral? And before you go with the whole "you have kids, i'm sure you knew you'd have to discipline them" counter, I wouldn't hold my great grandchildren accountable for something their parent did. Much less the great grandchildren of my great grandchildren.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
How does this escape you? If the guy's given a wife and that wife bears him children, he can either abandon that family or stay a slave, essentially extortion? Still think indentured servitude is awesome? And it's still weird that you think it's fine for non-Hebrews to be chattel slaves. How's that moral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
To why doesn't God just go back and fix stuff so it doesn't require humans to do something morally dubious like commit genocide for him? When he can just go back and say "These amalekites, I did something wrong when I made them because they're making me so unhappy....I should either ifx them or delete them." It's so much easier to do if you're actually omnipotent and omniscient, though I guess if you were omniscient, you'd have known they were going to piss you off so much that you ordered the men, women, children and livestock slaughtered, which again raises a moral question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
It's all about why didn't God just make everything wonderful! Problem free!
So, what's the answer, do you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Since you're here, I may as well ask though, do you feel that you could have prevented another attack from Japan if you had been in charge back then?
??? How the hell would I even begin to make this calculation? What's the relevance?
I honestly don't understand any of this.
Let me try to explain a little better. My read of your invocation of the Hiroshima idea, wherein the US dropped bombs on Japan, is that for humans, often, the ends justify the means. I"m not categorically opposed to the idea as a concept, but it's not at all related to anything to do with the divine. The god you believe in, for example? I've seen explanations that the genocides he orders are because he has to, in order to affect some greater end. This argument is poor as it comes to the morality of the character god in question, because it disregards the fact hat the Amlekites, for example, were by necessity also created by god, and that he had other options available to him besides "Send the hebrews in their to slaughter them to the last lamb." In other words, he didn't have to kill the Amalekites, AT ALL. In fact, he never has to kill anything: he could simply rewind time, delete the faulty line in the program, and rerun it, no one would be the wiser. This option is not available in the real world, and thus, the ends justify the means is a valid argument in some cases. If there are UNLIMITED means, truly unlimited, would it ever be justified to kill someone else, no matter the reason?
If you went back in time, had the opportunity to prevent the purchase of foreign, they probably would say thanks, but no thanks.
Wow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
In your Hiroshima analogy, aren't you kind of creating a false dichotomy: either nuclear fire melting the faces of civilians and leadership alike, OR no action at all? Seems to me that there's a lot of intermediate steps one might be able to take in order to check the outcome of the conflict.
And that analogy alone is an interesting thought experiment, but to relate it back to the ropic of a god, Allied Leadership would have had to have the option to simply "delete" the bad actors in Japan, or rewinding time to go back to before Japan even attacked, or to rewind to where the causes that led to their attacking the US could be satisfactorily ameliorated (in other words, they have ALL options, even those that are not available to real world beings, because they are literally all powerful). If the Allies have THIS option...
...is it moral for them to say "Yeah, we could do that, but I'd rather drop two atomic bombs on thousands of residents who have absolutely nothing to do with any of this"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
The Christian viewpoint is that God transcends the time, space, matter universe. The argument is that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause. Since God is an eternal (no beginning, no end) and transcendent Being (beyond the physical realm), a cause does not apply to God.
What if my "worldview" for before the big bang states that the matter that makes up the universe, all the matter that is in the universe right now, the matter that resulted from the big bang, is eternal, it has no beginning or ending.? Can you please explain why this cannot be the case?
Does the causal tree end at the BB?
Our ability to know what happened before there was time ends at the big bang.
So, for you, most things in the universe has an explanation except the universe itself, the starting existence of living things, and morality?
THe first two yes, most things have a non-magical explanation, except for 'before' the big bang (this is where time begins, as far as we can tell) and abiogenesis. Morality is explained in many, many more sensible ways than "invisible being decreed stuff that only really applies to one culture at one time the more it's interrogated."
Christian Evidence:1. The Bible claims it is the word of God.
Claim =/= evodence.
2. The internal unity and consistency of it of its main themes
Present in many, many, many books and series of books, even series of books by different authors, and in many religious texts you summarily reject as blasphemy.
3. Prophecy, which is most reasonable to believe based on the historical evidence available.
Which prophesy in the bible is in the text, specific, and actionable? Otherwise isn't it just a guess? Plus you've already admitted that prophesies don't weigh on your faith at all, strange that you'd bring it up here. We had a long discussion on the prophesy of the Houston Astros, and how the writer could have claimed it came from Xenu, and it was specific, actionable, and documented both in prediction and in passing. You said, during that discussion, if the scholar who found some shifty math to make your favorite one about the temple come true, came out tomorrow and said "Hang on, got that one cold wrong!" you'd still be a believer. The bible doesn't have any real prophesy in it.
4. Jesus, His existence, His resurrection, and who He claimed to be.
Existence that is disputed by historians, an event that can't be corroborated, and claim =/= evidence.
5. Explaining our existence and the existence of the universe.
"BEcause Jesus" is not an explanation.
6. The impossibility of the contrary or the extreme internal inconsistency of other worldviews.
"They have to be wrong" does not lead to "I am right" by default.
7. Something outside the box (the universe) as a reasonable explanation for what is in the box.
Assertion that goes against the scientifically proven laws of conservation.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Infants need their mothers. And while I certainly agree that infants do need their mothers - as a general principle. I also know that many infants in our world survive without their mothers so far as their are others who are willing to take on that role. And in the story of Noah - there are 8 people who are willing to take on that role. AND who would do well in the circumstances.
What do you think an infant lion or leopard need their mothers FOR, exactly? Why would eight people who were not biologists or zoologists "do well" in taking on the role of, say, "Bear's Mom" AND "Chimp's Mom" when both have extremely different requirements? Where in the bible does it say they had the skills to sustain these animals, literally at least two of every kind on earth, so there must have been something like 700K beetles alone on board? Chances are the writers of this cribbed tale didn't have any idea how many animals there ARE on earth, right? Please explain "would do well." My guess is your answer likely has some element of magic in it that's undemonstrated and not in many of the bibles: "God gave them the knowledge" or "God removed those needs from the animals" or "God made magical food for them and it showed up every day in the food room".
As for the notion that mothers need to be their to protect them - eh what? a new world with only animals from the ark - not a heck of a lot of other animals to protect them from - and ah what - the other animals are infants - so not too dangerous yet?
How quick do you think a baby lion, without the nourishment required from mother's milk, would figure out to grab the weakest baby antelope, who can't run, because it hasn't eaten? They need protection from EACH OTHER.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
True, my experience is most Christians will get rather uncomfortable and make all sorts of excuses on how people who aren't Christians get into Christian heaven (it's the only one, right?), none of which are consistent with the bible. None get in except through Jesus, and if you don't know Jesus, you're out of luck...sorry, kids who are born into Islam and die of some terrible illness. I bet many will do so in response to this post :).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
THis is the exact same discussion you ALWAYS end up in. And not just with me. But here you go, again: please define "make sense of origins". What you really mean is "if you take out the god I worship, it doesn't make sense to me." Saying "Jesus started the universe" doesn't 'make sense' of it, it assigns a cause. Saying god breathed the universe into existnece doesn't make sense, because as you often point out, you don't believe something can come from nothing, and in this scenario, both god and everything the the universe is composed of COME FROM NOTHING, same as the greek creation myth, same as many native American myth, same as Hindu myth. I don't care about making sense of origins in this way, literally not one bit.
Do you believe the universe began (general scientific consensus), or do you believe in an eternal universe? And state some of the conclusive evidence for your premise.
The cosmic background radiation and the continued expansion of the universe, among many, many, many other details, seems to be strong evidence of big bang cosmology. Now, state your conclusive evidence, NOT THE CLAIM IN THE BIBLE, that God (not A god, YOUR god), breathed the universe into existence.
So, everything in the universe has an explanation except the universe itself, the existence of living things, and morality?
No. We don't have the 'explanation' of what was here before the big bang. We have plenty of explanations for living things and morality. Your versions, AGAIN, does not 'explain' these things at all, it just says "because of Jesus." Before Jesus, it was some other incorrect explanation.
You find yourself existing in the universe yet you have no ultimate explanation for it.
Yes. So?
Is it reasonable to believe He is necessary for a reasonable explanation?
Without your explanation of WHY he'd be necessary, the answer is short: no, it is not remotely reasonable to pick a character from a book less than 2000 years old and pretend that's the "because" for every single thing that's ever happened. I'll say it again: it is not remotely reasonable. Why do you think such a character is necessary?
I'm giving you two options. Include a more reasonable one if you think there is a more reasonable explanation than either of these two.
All I'm saying is this isn't the only two options. You're adding 'reasonable' in a subsequent post. It's on you to define reasonable, not me to guess what you think reasonable means in this context. Cosmic origins don't need to necessarily even be 'reasonable.' Perhaps part of the reason we DON'T quite understand them is because we're constantly trying to graft our current understanding of the world onto them when in fact stuff like black holes and time dilation are on their surface NOT reasonable or logical. Your big problem is you're trying to graft an illiterate people's understanding of the world around them 2000 years ago to what we know about science today. In your context, it's more reasonable to believe in demonic possession than it is to believe in germ theory or mental disorders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I give an example of what someone who rejects a God or creator would have to believe
Someone who rejects your god doesn't have to believe in the Big Bang. There are literally thousands of creation myths in history.
Fine, but how do you explain the universe, your existence, morality by tracing it back in time to origins?
Answers to these questions are not required to be skeptical. And saying "jesus" doesn't "explain" anything.
Which is more reasonable to believe for you, God or chance happenstance?
False dichotomy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
You have it backwards: You are not Mormon BECAUSE.... {reason}. Is the reason "my parents aren't mormons, they're Christians, and I'm a Christian?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Why not? That book claims to be true, unlike the bible we know who the actual author was, we can corroborate his existence, their movement built a massive following, and his book is internally consistent, meets all the same criteria laid out for the Christian bible. Also, do you accept all claims in the bible as fact?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
The commandments clearly forbids rape.
Which commandment clearly does that? Because it's pretty clear about stuff like not working on the sabbath (whichever day during the week it is), it's clear about not making drawings or idols of god (though that's fallen by the wayside), and it's pretty clear that you shouldn't say his name in vein, and it's very confident in convicting you of crimes that only happen in your mind (like coveting your neighbor's ass or wife, or neighbor's wife's ass) but I don't recall which one of the commandments expressly says don't rape.
The answer to the topic is no. There's a very clear condition on god's love: you have to love him and believe in him and follow his laws. Otherwise you are either ignored and annihilated (this is the softest way Christians have com eup with to deal with stuff like a hindu child who dies at 9 years old from cancer) or you are punished for all eternity, which is not something people who love someone else would do. Finite transgressions have finite punishments not eternal ones.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Then you must be a Mormon, right? Because Joseph Smith doesn't admit the book of Mormon, which he transcribed from divine inspiration in the 19th century, is fiction. According to him, it's true. And to all the Mormons. The point SecMer is making is that a book doesn't have to be a true story to evaluate the characters in it. And your point, "You cannot use the Bible to show that God is evil but reject the other cialims in it," would reflexively mean that to accept any claim in the bible, one must accept all claims in it as fact, not pick and choose which ones you like to draw a character in some way that is otherwise inconsistent with the book.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
First off, the fact you read it as a myth was never in question. Don't know why you think it was.
Because you said:
Ludo, and many others view the text. They read it as a group of little children mocking Elisha's lack of hair. Elisha gets offended because he's sensitive about it, throws a tantrum, commands 2 bears to come out and slaughter the little culprits.
I do not in any way read it that way. I read it as a story from a different time that has nothing to do with if they were kids are not. You demmonstrate this repeated misunderstanding right here:
You have a problem with term the children being used in the passage.
I do not have this problem at all. Again the age of the people reportedly mauled is immaterial to how I read it, which is best described as "as it is written and translated."
How do I know that Elisha was in physical harm?I think I made it clear that it's my opinion.
Okay, so we are in agreement that this condition is NOT in the text, anywhere, and you're adding it. Why, exactly, are you adding it? It doesn't say "mob" either, it says children, calling him bald. Or boys, calling him bald. And telling him to leave their town, which apparently he was, because he TURNS AROUND to sic the bears on them. Again, this is the text.
You say that the Bible is poorly written.
This is a subtle distinction: I'm not saying it's poorly written, unless you're saying all this stuff that the text requires to be added to it in order to justify the actions in it. The bible is supposed to be the manual for all people, for all time, to save their souls, from eternal damnation. Is it not? If so, then why does it demand such extratextual additions to make it make sense today? If it were properly written, you wouldn't need to add to it (which is not the same as STUDYING it).
Where do you draw the line as to what is meant to be literal in the bible, and what isn't?
I don't think ANY of the bible is literal. That doesn't make it not worth reading, or not worth studying, but there's nothing in it. It has talking animals, magic unseeable angels, nothing at all that we can point to and say "That seems like it supports that Jesus rose from the dead." There isn't any second axis of triangulation on any of its important tales, there's not a second source I can use to say "this matches." It's a snapshot of its time, the gods and tales are mostly cribbed from other cultures, the stuff we should be able to verify, like the order of creation, an exodus of 600k people for forty years, or a global flood, is all demonstrably wrong. It's a collection of myths from unknown authors, from a culture whose contributions outside this book of myths is almost literally nothing at all compared to advanced cultures of the age. This is the most sensible conclusion I can reach based on available evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'll point out that more than likely Elisha's life was in danger. So verbal insults was not the only issue at play here.
You know, I really DON'T care about this story at all, but all your claims about it made me curious. Which version of the bible is the right one to use to understand this story? Because here's from the KJV:
2 Kings 2 23 - 25:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
I don't see any evidence of his life being in danger here. And this one specifically says little children, not a mob of young men. Maybe New International has it:
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
Hmmmm....okay so "some boys" is different than little children, but the bible does make a distinction between boys and men all over the place, so it seems strange to use "boys" to mean "men" here. Also, no mortal danger. Hm. New Century version?
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. On the way some boys came out of the city and made fun of him. They said to him, “Go up too, you baldhead! Go up too, you baldhead!” 24 Elisha turned around, looked at them, and put a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two mother bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys to pieces
Again boys...but again no bodily danger in the text. You're not putting it there on authority of someone else, right? Like no one TOLD you that's what had to be going on, instead you read the hebrew or greek and discerned that these translations are wrong? Can you please explain where the mortal danger is? New American must have it, right/
23 [a]From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on the way, some little boys came out of the city and jeered at him: “Go away, baldy; go away, baldy!” 24 The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the children to pieces.
Oh no! Little boys again, and again, no mortal danger, not even from the bears. Footnote in this one says "This story probably was told to warn children of the importance of respect for prophets." New international reader's edition:
23 Elisha left Jericho and went up to Bethel. He was walking along the road. Some boys came out of the town. They made fun of him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here! You don’t even have any hair on your head!” 24 He turned around and looked at them. And he asked for bad things to happen to them. He did it in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods. They attacked 42 of the boys.
They made fun of him, but again, no mortal danger. Why are you putting that in the text? If it SHOULD be there and was overlooked, then isn't this part of the bible at the very least poorly written, if not plain wrong? The words are the words, they have meaning. If god used the wrong words or inspired some fallible person to write the wrong words, then never inspired any other translator of the many, many, many versions of the bible to fix it, then what authority do you have to add this detail, that Elisha was in mortal danger, or at least about to be mobbed and beaten by children, to the text? Why shouldn't someone read it exactly as purportedly inspired or even DICTATED by god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
They read it as a group of little children mocking Elisha's lack of hair. Elisha gets offended because he's sensitive about it, throws a tantrum, commands 2 bears to come out and slaughter the little culprits.
Did you not see how I explained I read this text? I read it as a myth. I don't read it as children (even though the words say children) because the age of the people who are purportedly mauled to death by bears is immaterial to the morality of the action given the options available to the author of the bear attach (Jesus / God). It's just a story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
"Do you on some level think any parts of the Bible are wrong?"
In retrospect, a much easier entree into the discussion, wish I'd thought of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Same with the Bible. There are numerous translations and study guides to help an individual understand what they don't understand immediately.
Ok, so how do you know which one is correct? How do you know your interpretation is right, and my interpretation, which is "the words are the words", is wrong?
I think I may have been thinking of this comment."So, the bible then has lessons in it that do NOT apply to all time? Plenty of CHristians claim to use the bible as a guide to every day life, today, in the modern age, is that not true? How do you pick which ones apply word-for-word today versus the ones that you don't think can be read from a contemporary perspective?"
Fine, except you said this:
Why do you think that literature, particularly ancient is not worth reading if you can't readily understand it from a contemporary standpoint?
I don't think the bible isn't worth reading, it's just not inherently more worth reading than any other book of myths or study of ancient culture. I don't think in any way it's a factual account. It has, as you know, animals that speak hebrew in it. What this has to do with an actor or a 20 year old American I'm not sure. The story's just a myth, nothing more.
Nothing in it that supports a factual account?Were there prophets in Israel and Judah?If so, were prophets killed in Israel?Do bears kill people?And on thinking about it
The bible says there were prophets in that region, but that doesn't mean there were (just as the tale of the oracle at Delphi doesn't mean she was an actual oracle). Can you prove that those people were real, and that hey made accurate specific prophetic predictions that actually came true? I don't know if they were killed in Israel, because I don't know if they were really people who were prophets, even if I grant they were actually people. Bears rarely kill people. I don't see what you're getting at.
It always goes back to how God should have handled any given situation.
And you getting your panties in a wad because what I say makes infinitely more sense than the way an all loving, beneficent god who cared about all people so much but knows everything, does it in the book.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Are you sure that's what it says if you read it in Hebrew, though/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
As far as your question about reading from a contemporary perspective, if you were to read an ancient Sumerian text, what would you do to best understand it? Do you think if you read an ancient Sumerian text, you're going to understand it after first reading?
It depends on the text, why I was reading it, what I planned to do with it. What sort of text is it? Why wouldn't I understand it after reading it the first time? I understand a lot of Roman and Greek mythology stories after reading them the first time, for example, and I don't speak either Greek or Latin, and they're older than Jesus. I understand Aesop's Fables, and I don't speak whatever language he spoke.
Why do you think that literature, particularly ancient is not worth reading if you can't readily understand it from a contemporary standpoint?
I don't think this at all.
I'll tell you what. Give me your honest interpretation of the Elisha and the bears incident, and then we can go from there.And in addition, when Jesus advised a person to cut their right hand off if it offends them, was that literal?
Elisha and the bears: a myth intended to strike some fear in the hearts of those who would mock people preaching a minority religious position in the ancient world, and an empty promise to said believers that their persecutors would suffer bodily harm as directed by the almighty himself. Nothing in it supports that it is a factual account. On thinking about it, however, the moral becomes incompatible with an all powerful all loving just god: there are significantly more humane and effective ways for such a being to handle these disputes, and if it were a real entity and chose bears mauling either children or adults, over, say, showing up and proving Elisha correct in his faith and killing no one, instead winning 40 something new converts...well choosing the bears technique seems not only stupidly ineffective, but immoral and cruel. I don't think what Jesus said was literal...I think it gives people permission to cut off their closes friends, or family, for not believing in the same magic they do, and to dedicate more resources to some idea rather than earthly concerns like "can my kids eat at night, because my wife keeps yelling at me to stop sacrificing perfectly good meat to Jesus when we can eat it right here."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Try not responding with gigantic strings of bible verses and opinions other than your own. Your posts are difficult to engage with, keep them tighter and then you'll get a conversation. I've told you this before, and you basically said "I'm not writing them for YOU." No duh, you're writing largely to hear yourself speak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
If you begin from the position of God's infallibility and the Bible's inerrancy as the inspired word of God, then it seems to me that no story in the Bible can be wrong enough that it is acceptable to hate or dislike it. If it seems wrong to you or to others, you will believe you or they have misunderstood it, that there is some deeper meaning you or they do not yet understand, or even refuse to believe (in the case of atheists/skeptics) - and your faith will drive you to find a meaning that is compatible with your faith. That is just what it means to look at the Bible through the lens of inerrancy, and it seems rather to me that you are asking if there are any Christians who don't look at the Bible through that lens.
Sort of...it's not really a lens of inerrancy anymore, though, it's more like a 'filter of contemporary.' The words in the bible are the words in the bible, and if it's not meant to be read or understood in anything but its native language, it shouldn't be published in any other language, because that risk misinterpretation. If these words are difficult, as they really are, for Christians to square with a character (god / Jesus) who they've been taught is nothing but love and justice and all things good, then you're correct, their faith seems likely to drive them toward any explanation, no matter how flimsy (see: Rod's explanation of the bible's instructions on who's okay to own as a slave, i.e.). These post-hoc rationalizations would indicate really clearly that there's a level of discomfort between the book and contemporary values. I don't expect a Christian to say 'the bible is wrong.' I hope there are some who wonder why the god they're taught about as a naive child isn't the same god in the book they're told is a modern manual to daily life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
So here we have a situation where when I first read the text, I'll be the first to admit, it looks like it reads exactly as Ludo stated it. But of course that's how it's going to look from a contemporary viewpoint.
So, the bible then has lessons in it that do NOT apply to all time? Plenty of CHristians claim to use the bible as a guide to every day life, today, in the modern age, is that not true? How do you pick which ones apply word-for-word today versus the ones that you don't think can be read from a contemporary perspective? Is it....the ones that make you uncomfortable? Look, I dn't care about Elisha and the bears who ate the children / teenagers, especially if you're just going to hand wave it and say "Inapplicable to today" so to why it doesn't make you wonder about what's going on in the book. I might ask "Why does the idea that god sent bears to eat young adults make this a more poignant verse, isn't there something else the god of all love and faith and kindliness could have done? Or maybe he could have informed Elisha "Sorry, I planned it this way, these young adults are only doing what I told them to do." But again, you just hand wave it, you don't explain WHY it's not as it says.
That somehow we should all ignore the fact that ancient near east languages are extremely difficult to understand.....Hebrew and Greek no exception, but he would assume we should read and understand the bible like we would watching an episode of Seinfeld.
You have given me two different answers to this very same question, and I'll ask it again: does someone need to know ancient greek or hebrew in order to apply the bible to thheir lives here in the 21st century? if the answer is YES, then how does the bible apply to all people at all times, if the nuance of the original language is absolutely required in order to fully understand this most important (literally every soul on the planet risks eternal burning if they're wrong and the bible is right)? If the answer is NO, then why do you keep using that as an excuse for the bible? You either need to know the language if you really want to go to heaven, OR you have to accept the interpretation from some authority (which you'd never do, right? You learned the language and made this judgement for yourself, and I'm the one making the mistake for reading the words in my own language and not assuming they mean exactly what they say). And then you'd have to trust that person is right, and not the multiple people who claim the same expertise who read it totally differently. Some, for example, still say god hates homosexuals, based on the biblical verses, while others say "In ancient hebrew "lie with another man" means like literally lying down, so if they just kiss each other standing up but never touch each other's sceptres, then it's okay to be gay", and you don't see that because you don't know the language.
A key factor in these texts is that Abraham believed his son would live. He hung onto a specific promise that would require his young son to remain alive, marry, and have children. This portion of scripture always seems suspiciously absent in his referencing.
Can you please explain the moral of the story of Abraham as you understand it? My understanding, and again I'm not some ancient greek linguistic expert as you seem to be, is that in order to prove his faith to god, god told Abraham to take his only son to the top of a mountain and kill him with a knife, as he would sacrifice a lamb (a practice I'm not quite clear on why god apparently loved so much, sacrifice, or apparently according to you, common human sacrifice). The idea, as I understood it, was to prove to god that he had the requisite amount of faith in god. DOES GOD NOT KNOW THIS ALREADY? If the answer is yes, then the story of Abraham is basically a tasteless and terrifying practical joke, on Abraham and Isaac (and probably led to some real awkward dinner convo). If the answer is no, then god is once again not all knowing.
Of course none of this means anything to you, you're just going to say "Well, you don't get it, you aren't fluent in Hebrew."
And truthfully I'm just trying to liven up the place, it's the same two topics here for months and months until it devloves into Tradeecret and Stephen having one of their tiffs.
Created:
Posted in:
Almost any position can be justified by saying "I believe it's so, so it's so." Faith is not a reason to believe in anything, it's wrong far more often than it's right. Many people take on faith that one race is superior somehow to another.
Created:
Posted in:
Any Christians in here have a passage in the bible that you HATE when skeptics or adherents of other religions bring up? One that really annoys you, because it is really a tricky subject to discuss? I know several in here get all up in arms about the Amlaekites or that guy who sicced a bear on some children because they called him bald, but I think the two that would make me most frustrated as a Christian are Jephtha and Abraham.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
So god didn't know what Judas was going to do when he made Judas?God did know what Judas was going to do when He made Jesus.
Answer the question as asked please.
No, and yes.
Thus, Satan's plan is actually god's plan, right?
Can you tell me what would happen if you managed through advanced technology to go back in time, and tried to prevent your birth?
No, why would I be able to do that? How's that relevant?
We have a huge, but also very real problem. One we also find no way around. And that is the mystery of time. The fact that we cannot grasp a timeless realm or dimension is why the confusion about predestination exists.
No, the problem is NOT with time or timelessness. It's with the notion that there's a grand plan for all things at all times, and that you're somehow responsible for your sins, which are departures from the will of god. If you can depart from the will of god, then god isn't all knowing. This is EXTREMELY easy to understand, but Christians when confronted on it go for the classic gish gallop. Unless, of course, you care to detail how "time" is somehow the culprit for the proposed 'confusion' about predestination. It isn't. It's simply the idea that there IS a plan, and that the plan is immutable. It means nothing can be other than exactly as it was intended to be, and therefore, Judas is not in any way responsible for his treachery. Without Judas, Jesus isn't crucified in the story. It's very, very, very clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
But Judas was not made to betray Jesus.
So god didn't know what Judas was going to do when he made Judas?
Satan's plan was that Judas betray Him.
So Satan's plan took precedence over god's plan? Can god see what Satan's plans are?
It's not revelation/omniscient knowledge, but rather experience knowledge.
Yeah, so it's not really the same: Jesus is god, right? I'm not. When I 'know' someone will do something, it's as you say, based on my experience with that person. When a proclaimed all -knowing superbeing knows someone will do something, he's not guessing. He knows. Unless...did Jesus not know Judas would betray him? He knew Peter would, according to the story, right? Why is Judas different?
The rest depends on your answers above. If there's a plan, then Judas was made to do exactly what he did, otherwise god would be surprised (less than omniscient). There's no way around it. In a plan for all time for all things, there simply isn't free will. The illusion of it yes, but not the real thing. If this was SATAN's plan, then it either superceded god's plan (and therefore god isn't omniscient, or omnipotent), or god's plan was to let satan's plan work out, basically making it god's plan. In any case, if there's a truly omniscient god who has a plan for all things for all times and knows all things at all times, Judas can't be held in contempt for doing exactly what this farcical passion drama required him to do from the very beginning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
@Tradesecret
That thought is absurd. Why would we, as Christians, believe in something or Someone who is irrelevant?As Christians, we believe that what you believe about God affects how you spend eternity. How can that be irrelevant?
This is a question for Tradesecret, as I can't explain why you believe in something that's irrelevant.
Religious meaning man-made beliefs. As believers, we do not believe Christianity qualifies in this category.
Is this what you meant, Tradesecret? Essentially, anyone who ISN'T a Christian is following a phony 'religion' straight to hell? I don't get it, you guys are both Christians, but saying totally different things. Tradesecret seems to say if you don't follow the bible, even if you're a sinner, it doesn't really matter, but YOU, PGA, seem to be saying there's no way to be saved WITHOUT the bible, and following the rules in it, at the very least repenting, but TradeSecret's gay friends are still going to heaven. How weird! And how, pray tell, do you know Christianity isn't man made? What supports that?
God chose through His own sovereign will to give humanity a volition.
So was it just dumb luck Judas turned Jesus over to the Romans?
It does not depend on our "decency". The Bible makes it plain that no one will stand just on their own merit since once you have broken a single command of God you no longer meet His perfect standard. God will not compromise His purity for those who will not follow His decree and will since it compromises justice.
Again directly contradicting Tradescret, a fellow Christian. Which one of you is right, how can I tell? Your version of god sounds like a real dickhead, almost like a pointless bureaucrat: doesn't matter if you're the greatest person who ever lived, charitable, honest, helps out in the community, doesn't discriminate against his fellow man, if you don't tick that "I'm a Christian" block, sorry charlie, you burn forever in a lake of fire. Perfect justice! :-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
@Tradesecret
@RoderickSpode
I agree that religion is totally irrelevant. And this is what a lot of Christians say as well.
Do your fellow Christians agree that being a Christian is irrelevant?
I'm glad you and I could find some common ground, Tradesecret. We both see religion as totally irrelevant. The Judas question: why should he repent if he only did what god planned for him to do in order to fulfill his whatever it was?
God might have had a plan which was always going to come to pass - but every individual within that plan still has to bear the responsibility of their own actions.
This seems cruel: he plans for you to commit whatever acts you're going to commit, then holds you responsible for committing them? An immutable plan means you have no choice but to follow the plan (think of a rat locked in a maze: there's only one way out, the rat can't CHOOSE how to get out). Either it's a plan, or it isn't. Unless you mean we can depart from said plan, which...challenges both omnipotence and omniscience, but allows for free will. In the end, I guess what difference does it make, as religion is completely irrelevant, so long as you're a decent person, even if you denounce Jesus, you're probably going to heaven, according to what you've said. So Judas has to be there. He was a follower of Christ and was only doing as he was made to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
@RoderickSpode
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him will not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16.There is no mention of being a Christian here. There is only mention of trusting the Son
Then religion is completely irrelevant?
Like Judas Iscariot.
Why is Judas so reviled? Didn't he only do what the plan absolutely needed him to do, get Jesus to the cross? That question always bugged me.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Maybe in science fiction, but really all robots are built for function first. There might be some in beta test, but by a wide, wide, wide margin, robots do not look like humans, even the ones who "interact" with humans (as if the manufacturing automation doesn't interact with humans?). They have to humanize some of these to reduce the natural apprehension, like putting googlie eyes on one. There's a couple of robots built by Honda that are humanesque, but they literally serve zero function other than proof of concept right now.
Can you give me some examples of the kinds of robots you're talking about, and where we can see them in use? Also, does god like robots?
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Why are the robots produced now identical to us? Why is it so important that they look like us, as opposed to say, Robbie the Robot?
Google any automaker plant, in fact almost any manufacturing plant. Maybe 1% of robots produced have some sort of human shape. The majority only look like what they need to look like to perform the functions for which they are designed. IBM's Watson, the most advanced AI to date...looks literally nothing like a human. One could posit that this is by design, because the moment we start 'identifying' with robots as peers, you end up with a lot of ethical questions. Watch Be Right Back, an episode of Black Mirror. It raises these ethical questions. I'm really intrigued by the discussion of AI achieving independent intelligence, and the implications it would have for religion and for how we treat such robots, though, I've tried to start hat discussion many times!
Created:
Posted in:
People don't go to heaven because they are Christian. God does not discriminate on the basis or wealth, skin color, sexuality, or orientation, intelligence, sex, religion or anything else that divides people on earth. Hence if God does not discriminate on this basis - none of these things are reasons for people not to be in heaven.
Please cite the bible verse that support any of this. I'm sorry bud, but this is not the Christian view. It makes religion completely irrelevant in the proposition, and violates at least one commandment. It's a nice thought but very, very few Christians will agree that Christianity is not a condition to go to Christian heaven.
Created: