Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The intricacy of certain Dart members on this platform is truly remarkable. Amidst prior misconceptions of them being merely conventional and clichéd partisans, an unexpected glimmer of elegance emerges by chance.
It's amazing how nuanced some Dart members are on this site. When you might have wrongly thought they were just the simple common hackneyed partisan hack, a ray of grace fortuitously appears.
Bizarre redundancy here...are we using AI to just write whole posts for us now? Because that sentence was either written by a computer, or by someone who thinks throwing big words into a sentence makes them sound smart. Maybe you did write it...can you give me an idea what a poster who is "intricate" looks like?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
God is infinite. He is not bound by the laws of science that he created. Therefore, it is possible for him to be infinite.
Ok, so this is what's known special pleading, of course. Nothing can be infinite, except for this one thing I require to be infinite in order for my position to make sense.
Which god are you talking about and why that one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I know what it is. It is the beginning of the universe. And explosion that God spoke into existence.
Okay, where did the god come from?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
That fact (that some slaves benefited from the skills they acquired from slavery after being freed), when considering the fact that slavery lasted for centuries is so incredibly benign and so deeply pales in comparison to the horror of what slavery was that it becomes offensive to devote any time to it just as it would be offensive to devote any time teaching our kids about the positive trade offs to downtown NYC resulting from 9/11.
Isn't even THIS bolded part pretty questionable? Slaves were freed in the late 1860's. How easy was it in, say 1875, for a black person to own a business in let's say South Carolina? I would bet that "benefits" flowed largely to the white business owners these skilled laborers ended up having to work for, far more than it benefitted the laborer. Especially if that skilled labor was a woman, a seamstress, for example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Again, God can do supernatural things. Things against the laws of science, because he is the law of science.
This is the sum and substance of your entire argument here. Essentially every contradiction of science will be answered with some version of "God is science so anything he does in the book is now scientifically sound." There's no reason to continue discussing it, it's boring. And I'm not starting fifty topics on each stupid and obvious contradiction in the bible, I'm sure you can get someone else to do that. I already asked:
How, for example, does light come before stars? How did Noah live to be 900 years old? How did he gather two (or more) of each specific species of land dwelling living thing on earth and somehow fit LITERALLY (that's how you use this word) 15+ million creatures on a boat he built for forty days?
Feel free to take on any of these scientifically.
Also, your passage LITERALLY does not say god spoke through the donkey. It LITERALLY says that god opened his mouth and the donkey spoke his own donkey thoughts (That's what "which" is doing in that sentence, and not "Who").
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I literally just told you.The story is about how God used a Donkey to talk to Balaam.The donkey did talk, but not by his own choice. God used the donkey.
Yeah, I think you're using this word incorrectly. If the story is LITERAL, then somewhere in there, it should say "And for some odd reason, rather than communicate directly to Balaam, God spoke through the donkey." It doesn't say that, and therefore is not "literal." Literal means the words on the page.
Why are you bothering with this, anyway? You're not really interested in a good faith discussion, because like all Christians on this topic, you simply hand wave everything as "well, that part's a metaphor, duh" and "god used his powers even though the book doesn't say that." I guess my question is what's the point for you? You've yet to address anything that actually contradicts science in any real way. How, for example, does light come before stars? How did Noah live to be 900 years old? How did he gather two (or more) of each specific species of land dwelling living thing on earth and somehow fit LITERALLY (that's how you use this word) 15+ million creatures on a boat he built for forty days?
THe answer's all the same for you: used his science contradicting powers. Are you like trying to "own the atheists" or whatever? I don't get it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So then it's NOT literal?
Here's the passage again.
And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey, on which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Is it my habit to treat you this way?” And he said, “No.”
Please point out where you're getting that god is speaking through the donkey.
This is why talking about biblical contradictions is a pointless waste of time. Christians just say "well magic is why that doesn't contradict science." You're in over your head from the start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
This story is literal.See, in elementary school, you learn how to tell if something is written as a metaphor.Do you see anything in this story that points to it being a metaphor?
So in this non-metaphorical story, are you saying that the talking donkey was the only and last one of its kind? The donkey LITERALLY spoke, in hebrew I guess?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
A thousand is a specific number, is it not? It doesn't say "innumerable years," it says THIS NUMBER OF YEARS. It doesn't even say ten thousand or one hundred thousand. It says one thousand. So the words are there, they are specific. This point is stupid, because this still doesn't address that light can't come before stars. Let's do Noah's Ark instead. There's less metaphor in that story, right? And it's definitely contradicted by what we know today. Do you think the Noah's Ark story is scientifically accurate as it's written?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
And things like Noah's Ark, letters to King David, and many more Biblical artifacts have been found to prove its legitimacy.
Please tell me more about the bolded. How many metaphors are in that story?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Meaning that this is not literal, but simply a Metaphor.A metaphor that shows that time for God is different than time for us.
Maybe, but a thousand years is an equation, not a metaphor. And you didn't understand what I pointed out. The metaphor says it's like a thousand years. It does not say "a day for god is like 223 million years." So that doesn't work. The words are the words. If you want to argue from the bible, you have to use the words as we understand them. And revelations is written long, long after Genesis, that metaphor might hold a little more weight if it were chronologically closer to the point in question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Apologies, I see you are actually using the word Christianity, but it does appear you want to talk about the bible. Let me rephrase my post accordingly:
Okay, so 6 * 1000 = 6000. Not 13.4 billion. If you're going to use the words in the bible, then the words have to mean something, right? If you're just going to say "well, a thousand means 223 million maybe," then there's no point in having this discussion at all. Did ancient hebrews even have a concept of "a billion" anything? THat seems pretty advanced thinking for a culture who contributed so little of import to their time. If you'd like to discuss does the bible contradict science and vice versa, then I'm afraid you have to use the words in the bible as we currently understand these words, otherwise the bible is entirely meaningless as a document. NUmbers especially, as these don't have any interpretation to them, specifically SMALL numbers. 10 has always meant 10. 6 has always meant 6. See what I'm saying?
And if you're going to use the bible, then please note which version you are using so we can discuss that specific version, and please tell me why you're choosing that version.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But in Revelations, it says that one day for God is like (metaphor) a thousand years for us.
Okay, so 6 * 1000 = 6000. Not 13.4 billion. If you're going to use the words in the bible, then the words have to mean something, right? If you're just going to say "well, a thousand means 223 million maybe," then there's no point in having this discussion at all. You're better off debating does CHRISTIANITY contradict science, because the bible binds you to the words in the book against actual demonstrable knowledge. Stuff like stars came AFTER light, for example, in the bible, where we now know that stars and light exist simultaneously. Did ancient hebrews even have a concept of "a billion" anything? THat seems pretty advanced thinking for a culture who contributed so little of import to their time.
And as I said in your other thread on this, which version of the bible are you working with? And why that one, how do you know it's the authoritative version?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The Treaty of Versailles, which was imposed on Germany after World War I, played a major role in weakening the country both economically and politically.this is true.
Of course it's true, it's cribbed from the chatgpt bot or some other AI search engine, that whole enumerated list.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Which version of the bible are you using? And why that version?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Agree, but you choose not to chase women other than your wife right?
Sure, but that's a different pair of shoes. I'm talking about a physiological reaction, you're talking about my personal moral code. My point is I can't help who I'm attracted to, and because I'm not consciously deciding "I want to be attracted to this beautiful tower of thicc perfection that is briskly jogging over hurdles and finishing last, girl don't move too fast, lemme get a good look at you." So if I'm not deciding to do that, is it not reasonable to conclude it's something I can't control? An instinct? Why would it be any different for gay people?
So lucky, then, that you ended up in the right one!I know the above is sarcasm, but I think myself lucky to be brought up in this way. It has been a lifeline to me.
I worried it sounded that way, and maybe it was a little tongue-in-cheek, I'll admit. In reality it IS good you ended up in a community that helps make you happy or helps with times of need. So long as you don't infringe on the rights of others, I mean it, good for you, but my point is more that every Christian on earth thinks they're in the right church. You seem to agree here:
There are a lot of wrong churches, but keep in mind that they all read from the same Bible and should hear from the same God. Someone is not listening or following directions.
If there are so many wrong churches, then why isn't god correcting them explicitly, instead choosing to let the wrong church preachers with bad biblical information lead his beloved followers into eternal damnation? God has to get his smite game tight, because it seems irresponsible to let his name be used in such a way. Yet every year new denominations emerge, new preachers both nefarious and benevolent start congregations, and there's no definitive "THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE."
My brother and mother both are not in the same way as me. It is their decision though. So it's sad, but I can only do so much.
I hear you, but this point really gets to the crux of another question. Do you, personally, think that your mom and brother deserve eternal damnation if the only thing they do differently from you is believe differently? You don't have to answer that one, it's an uncomfortable question, it's just something to maybe show a little more of my own perspective. I don't, and I don't think if a perfect justice existed, it would think so either. You can live a perfectly good life as let's say an adherent Muslim, a life that largely comports with Christian standards EXCEPT for the parts about Jesus and the bible, you know, helping your fellow man, not being a murderer, being honest, etc., then die and get to the pearly gates and be kicked into eternal torture because you checked the wrong box on the form. That isn't justice, and it's one of the reasons I find the character immoral and repugnant.
Also Happy 4th!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Maybe I wasn't clear. A man will choose to lust after another man's body just like he can choose to lust after a woman's body, or a child's body or a animals body or a pillow shaped like a "lolli". This does not mean he was born that way or that God designed his lusts towards men. All men lust after something and we all have to reign in our lust so it doesn't hurt ourselves and/or others.
I don't choose to lust after women, it's just something that happens, though. Know what I mean? Something about a certain type of woman just jingles that bell. This week was that Belgian shot put woman who ran the hurdles, and yeah, I was as surprised as you are. But let me tell you bro, she could GET IT. :). In all seriousness, I'm just having trouble understanding your understanding of god's responsibility as the author and knower of all things for all time. Kinda seems to me if it was going to be a big deal to him, then he would have known about it early and fixed it, if indeed he didn't WANT to torture some portion of his creation forever, and just feel right about it.
I was partially raised in it. I stayed and one of my brothers is like you. The difference between him and me is that I followed the Biblical way and was filled with God's spirit. In order to go to the correct church, you have to be led or called of God. Most people that come in to the church will have a testimony that they were somehow drawn to it. There are other factors which guide our lives besides logic and emotion.
The bolded part was the most likely answer. After all, I didn't choose to be Catholic, I just came from a line of them. And you see a vanishingly small number of true "conversions" from faith to faith, like how many Catholics do you know that become Muslims, right? Hereditary is the most common way people end up in churches and faiths. So lucky, then, that you ended up in the right one! The problem still is that every church proclaims themselves to be the right one, right? Which probably leads to your assertion that you must be led or called by god himself to the right church, if in fact you weren't born there. Doesn't this then put the responsibility on god to call or lead his creation to the right church? Makes me wonder why there are so many competing denominations, because they can't all be right, in fact, all of them save one have to be wrong, which means an awful lot of people who think they're in good shape are in for an unpleasant surprise. Does it make you sad to think your brother is going to hell, and when you're in heaven you'll forget about him?
As for a preacher, I'll put it this way, you wouldn't accept the teachings of marriage from a divorced man would you? He would have to know what he is talking about. In order to know if its right, check on what he says with the Bible.
I don't think being divorced necessarily disqualifies you from knowing something about marriage. And you say in order to know he's right, I need to check what he says in the bible...but also say that I can't fully understand the bible without a preacher to interpret it or help me along. Seems like the fox and the hen house. I thought this was exactly the opposite of the 'personal relationship' with Jesus that evangelicals were talking about, where a preacher is a nice to have, not a must have.
To answer your question, yes, you would end up in hell if you continue like you are or keep going to the catholic church. I know this is a complete turn off to any religion because you love your parents, but I didn't write the Bible. We were given it and we are to follow it. Not trying to be mean here.
I didn't take it as mean, I understand this is what you believe, I just like the clarity, which is why I asked for the clarification. It doesn't upset me at all, as I don't think anyone I love is going anywhere but wherever the flame on a blown out candle goes when they pass.
Created:
Posted in:
With this in mind, there would be some sort of afterlife reward and punishment for all, in the same place, not including the church. The church is specifically the "bride of Christ" so I am going to assume that their place in the afterlife has a higher importance.
So you believe the afterlife isn't limited to Christians, just that Christians get the best heaven? I'm not trying to sound glib, I just want to read it as you intend it.
But to clarify, God does not create gay people or make them gay.
Hm. Wouldn't he HAVE to create gay people for them to exist? If not, then at the very least, wouldn't he know they'd be gay? I don't know how that doesn't end up with god being responsible for it. And if it was such a problem, I always wonder why did he even make it a possibility by design? I know you don't have the answer to that last question (it's really more an engineering question), but I'm curious as to how god is absolved of authorship.
Sorry. They may be nice people and all but they cannot be a Christian and be gay.
I hear you, and to be honest, my understanding of Christianity agrees with you. It's just difficult to understand why they'd even want to be Christians, it'd seem they've been betrayed by every level of their belief, from their understanding of their creation (former understanding I guess) to their pewmates who suddenly see them as vile creatures worthy of scorn and shunning. Hard to see people heartbroken and rejected by their family, too, over something like that. I almost said it's not a big deal, being gay, but clearly it's a big deal to a lot of non-gay people I guess.
This is why it's important to go to the right church that preaches Bible and not tradition.
How'd you pick the 'right church', if I can ask? And how would or could I have known if mine was wrong? What if I'd kept going to Catholic church, or the evangelical one, and they were both wrong. Sounds like you think I'd end up in hell, is that incorrect?
Also in this passage of your post, you say the bible might not make sense if it doesn't come from the right preacher. But isn't that what the entire protestant movement was kind of about? Removing that interlocutor between god and his people so they can have a personal relationship with him?
The other problem is that we can miss things unless God reveals it to us.
Do you mean we can miss things in the bible unless god reveals them to you? Because I don't understand why some sort of outside factor, basically a decoder ring, would be required to understand what I would conclude you think is the most important piece of writing ever written. Think of it this way: let's say a tribesman from a remote Amazonian jungle village happens upon a bible in his hunt one day. The bible is in a language he understands, but there's no preacher around. Isn't the point that if he reads the bible and follows it, he's now a Christian and saved, even if he doesn't know any preachers?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
I know what it takes to go to heaven and I don't want to go to hell
This gets to my point: the main thing that's good about heaven is you know it isn't hell. Doesn't that seem weird? I will never sign up for anything that would in any way jeopardize that relationship, and the idea of something else being so amazing I completely forget that my kids exist, I'm going to pass on it. If hell wasn't an option, let's say, would you sign up for completely forgetting your entire earthly existence? I bet deep down the answer is a little troubling, I know it was for my mom when I asked her this question, when she was upset that I'm an atheist, raising children who don't have any religion. It was her being so upset, to the point of tears, at the idea of spending her afterlife without me or my children than brought this question up initially.
What I mean by heaven is where the Christian people will go to. There is an everlasting "paradise" for old testament people that I can only assume is something similar
Who's in charge of the paradise for old testament folks? And, do you think that the people who existed prior to the old testament, and people who lived on entirely undiscovered continents when the old testament was written (I presume you concede these people were also created by god), do they have their own heavens, or are they in hell? I know there's not a lot of official dogma on this topic, so I'm really just curious as to how you think about it. It would seem inconsistent with the idea that you have to have god or Jesus or have been baptized to get in. Wouldn't it also create a question of god's honesty with the hebrews? If he's in charge of multiple paradises that all have different entry criteria, then why is the bible so strict on how to get in? That's one question. If he's NOT in charge of, let's say, some Aboriginal or Native American heaven, then he's not the only god.
As for you knowing God, I will beg to differ only from what you told me of your background. You were a catholic. The Catholics don't follow the Bible. The Catholics never had God in their church and therefore, no one there really knew God. They knew of God or at least what they heard from the priests, but the concept of God was skewed and warped and it never really showed who God was. That is also why I asked who the Christian couple was at your work that you went to church with. Same concept. If they didn't follow the Bible, then they couldn't have known God too (I am only assuming that this is the case here).
But I've read the bible, I'll admit not exhaustively and not in some time, but I've read a very large portion of it (you can keep all of the begetting early on, that's boring unless you're going to show the actual begetting :)). Can't someone get to know god that way? It's his word, purportedly. THe problem, I'm sure you see, is that every stripe of Christian, from Catholic on down, all say they're following the bible, and as yet no one has presented a reliable way to pick the right one. I figured taking all the outside influence away and just reading the words on the page was the best place to start. If the book is god's word, essentially an instruction manual for Christians, then why would I need someone else to tell me what THEY think it means? Why isn't my view as valid?
God gave them up to vile affections. If there is any reason that God created a gay guy it is because He let that guy go after his own lusts.
So god created the gay guy, knowing he was gay, and he's mad at the gay guys for being gay? I'm sorry, I'm not following here. As it stands, that seems exceptionally cruel, even for god, to create a person in such a way that they can choose between being miserable and lonely and a liar (a sin!) for their whole life, OR, they can burn forever in a lake of fire, for being exactly how they were made. I have to disagree that there are no gay Christians, I've known two (not counting clergy). You're making a "No True Scotsman" argument here, but also ignoring the tenet 'judge not lest ye be judged,' no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
No problem, it's not an easy question. Couple of interesting things here.
These are people that knew God and denies him later (Not like you. You never knew God. I'll explain if you want.)
This would allow for all the people who predate Jesus to be in heaven, even those who had no idea who he was. Can you point me to this in scripture? Because as I recall, the scripture does have Jesus saying there's no way to get to God unless it's through him (I think it's in John somewhere, near the 3:16 verse). These two things seem contradictory to me (your position and the scriptural one). Can you help me understand where you see this? Also, ZERO chance I'm getting into heaven if there is one, but that's nice of you :). I have a pretty good grip on the character in the bible, and not only do I not believe he exists, if he did, I find him immoral and unworthy of worship.
These are people that knew God and denies him later or people that are so vile like homosexuals who are whole heartedly into the gay stuff and pedophiles. These are people that have no conscience and the voice of God is shut out completely.
I took out the parenthetical here just for clarity. Didn't god make homosexuality an option?
And what about the homosexual Christians? The ones who desperately pray to be different, to the point of tears, because they feel so guilty? Or the ones who aren't pedophiles?
I would assume that the connection you have with God will make the connections with anyone on Earth look wimpy, therefore the immense love you have for your family would be dwarfed by God's love.
Isn't the love we have for family and friends a massive part of who we are though? I treasure the fuck out of my relationship with both my kids. I don't want to be in any dimension where I don't even remember having it. Why would anyone, I think. It's just weird how good a grip humans have on SUFFERING (look at how many different hells we can imagine), but almost none of paradise that sound appealing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Such behavior tends to not be the norm because species which primarily engage in such activity are far less likely to survive.
This is true, and dovetails nicely with the point:
It may have been valid centuries ago as we battled the elements of this world before modern technology,
I would bet that you'd find a correlation between species that engage in sexual behavior for reasons OTHER than reproduction (pleasure of course, but certain primate species also do so as a form of 'currency') and homosexual activity. I'm curious if that's ever been studied, I bet it has.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
heaven is for the people that have the name of Jesus applied to their lives (I.E. baptism) and have the spirit of God (Holy Ghost) dwelling in them. The idea of salvation is not just belief or a proclamation, but a lifestyle change, one that pleases God. There definitely will be a criteria for heaven. If there was not a standard, then heaven would be just like Earth, except for the "really bad" people are not there, you know, rapists, pedophiles, Hitler, etc.
Does this mean you think it's the option where the person who died knows his family isn't ever getting there? Jews and atheists don't meet your criteria as laid out here.
As to the bolded, isn't the appeal of Christianity that these people CAN get in there, provided they accept Jesus sincerely right before death (like the other two people crucified with Jesus did)? That everything can be forgiven, I mean, is the appeal. I mean the place has to be LOADED with priests that died, right? So you could, theoretically, end up in a heavenly mansion but you find out there are only former sex offenders on your block in heaven, and you start to think "Can I relocate somehow, is there a heavenly real estate agent who can help me get this mansion off my hands and move to someplace with less sex offenders?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
They may inherit it from their parents, but they definitely don't luck their way into it.
How is this different from "lucking" your way into it? By definition you did absolutely nothing to get the money, you didn't get it by skill or through any sort of genius.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
When it comes to Biblical standard, I am referring to the morals of it, not necessarily the worship of a particular God. For example, if we were to all follow, say the 10 commandments, society would benefit as a whole. [then later] If a society is flourishing, it's not because they chose the correct God or became Christian, but rather they are using techniques that make people around them safe, happy and prosperous, the same that are found in the Bible. Any good moral can be found in the Bible. I am not saying the Bible invented it. I'm saying that nobody likes murder or theft and the Bible clearly defines it too.
Thank you for the response. So we can agree based on this that the religion part of it is entirely superfluous? Your ten commandments example I can take issue with, but how did you decide not to apply the levitican laws, or simply scrap the whole thing for the only commandment Jesus seemed to care about? I'm encouraged to see that you don't think the bible either invented or has a monopoly on morality, but if that's so, then why bring it into the equation at all? Why not just say "let's decide, together, what does the most good for the most people, regardless of faith, and instead base it on demonstrable facts and data?" It doesn't sound like adding 'biblical' to anything helps much at all.
The idea of love thy neighbor as thyself is a great way to limit chaos. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a very useful way of thinking when trying to create harmony within a society of people that have all their own dreams and desires.
These predate the bible by a very long time, so we can't say they are exclusively "biblical" in principle, but that they're much closer to a humanistic view.
So I'm saying a deviation from those concepts is what will destroy us.
Aren't you saying that a deviation from SOME of those concepts will destroy us (taking your example that women are judges and slavery is no longer accepted)? How can we decide which ones will or won't?
I would say that if it were public school, then I still wouldn't send my kids there.
Excellent! This option is absolutely available to Christians today: if you don't like the public schools that have to service the entire American public population, you are free to send your child to some other school, sometimes yes at your expense, but that's just how it is in some places. You certainly don't support preferential treatment for faithful people in public places and publicly funded shared resources, as demonstrated here, and neither do I. I don't care how many hindi people are in my district, I am not going to let them tell me how to feed my kid. I will pack their lunch and tell them why they eat differently. I will organize against it, I'll make civil protest if I feel it necessary. It's exactly what I'd do if there were mandatory prayer in school. Again I think we agree, am I wrong? WHat I won't do, though, is think that my personal opinion or preference means more than anyone else's. If I'm outvoted on the matter, then I have two choices: run for office or find a school alternative.
Looks like there are health issues related to it.
That seems a bit of a fig leaf. No one is carrying a "God Hates Fags" sign because they are just concerned about the health of the homosexual community, right? :) So if it's just a health thing, isn't it their own health to worry about? I mean what they're doing in private is what they're doing in private, and there's no health issues that arise from, say, holding hands with your same sex gender while walking on a public street, right? I'm just not clear on what the solution you would propose to the problem with homosexuality is. In fact I'm not quite clear on what the problem with homosexuality really is, considering your post did say a couple of different ways that the bible isn't the absolute source of morality, that it changes over time, but you cited the bible as the reason homosexuality is wrong. Why are you so sure that's not something that, like women's suffrage, is one of those things we can change without it destroying civilization?
I know these discussions get heated up pretty quick, tempers run pretty high, so I will close by assuring you I'm not trying to condescend, I'm not trying to get any 'gotchas', I respect your right to have any opinion you want. I really do want to understand the way the world looks to you, it's difficult here to actually have these discussions because too many people seem to be concerned about winning something. I continue to engage with you because at least with me you've been honest and cogent and civil, I'm glad to disagree in this way. That's America!
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
Everything in America was based off a Biblical standard. So when we progress as a society, it should be with the idea that we are not changing the foundation.
Hm. This is debatable at the very least, considering no mention of any specific religion or god in our foundational documents. I'd say it was built from a humanistic standard. Can you help me understand what you're seeing as "everything" here (can you be more specific, in other words, as to what was based off a biblical standard)? I would point out that in the bible, women are subservient to men and do not have the same legal protections. That's a biblical standard, to me. Doesn't changing it, in other words giving women equal rights, elevating the above their parents' property to be traded, go against that foundation? I presume you don't advocate for the rollback of women's suffrage or something akin to what women have to put up with in modern Muslim countries, but I could be wrong.
Does this also imply that when you immigrate to what's billed as "The Land of the Free," where we have no state religion, no official language, you tacitly agree to abide by all customs in that land?
So in this case with the Hindu private school, a person would have to decide if they would not eat meat at the school in order to gain it's education. But if you decide to send your children there, don't get mad when they start wanting to become vegan. In my case, I wouldn't send them there.
It's not a private school, though. It's a public school. Same answer?
By this foundation, I am not referring to whose religion to choose, but rather the morals in which we abide by. We still think it's wrong to murder and steal, but now adultery, homo-sexuality and drug use is okay with society.
But you specifically advocate for a biblical standard as having been the one we "departed" from in this post. I'm going to wait until you respond to my first question before I make further conclusions here. I would just point out that prohibitions on murder and stealing well pre-date the bible. Stealing was illegal in literally every European and Middle Eastern society that dealt with any sort of currency or ownership. Even communal societies, like Native Americans, had rules along these lines, and they didn't know thing one about Jesus or the 10 COmmandments. I don't know if we think adultery is "okay," but we acknowledge that it happens, I guess. Why do you think we've changed how we view homosexuality, and now believe it's more acceptable? Maybe a better way to ask this is WHY is it unacceptable?
Drug use, do you mean people smoking weed? Because we still seem to think most drugs are pretty bad.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
I would except what is moral is determined by the bible, not by a bunch of guys and gals in a room deciding on what is moral depending on how the social climate is that day. The Bible should be the foundation to build upon, not discarded.
Hey David, sorry, jumping in late here. Do you make any allowance for non-Christians and their moral standards? If they view the bible the way you view literally every other purportedly holy text, what's the remedy? You'd say "Hey, don't do X, it says so in the bible," and they say "Well my holy text doesn't say anything like that, so, no." Or what if the shoe was on the other foot?
Let's say you and your family for whatever reason move to a different town, for any number of reasons. The school your child now goes to is great! Top notch educators, latest equipment and tech, etc. Only catch: they're not allowed to bring meat to school. In fact, they're not allowed to have animal products at all, because you are in a majority Hindu community, and they've decided that THEIR moral code applies to all. You say "The bible doesn't prohibit eating meat though!" and they say "Tough shit, this is Hindu country. You don't like it, move away."
I find it difficult to imagine you shrugging your shoulders and saying "Guess you're a part time vegetarian now, son / daughter."
If someone doesn't want to get married or decides to be gay or promiscuous, then it is against the standard. The standard shouldn't change because someone cries about it.
WHat's the remedy here, it being against the standard and all? Like what's to be done about it, I'm curious. And when SHOULD the standard change?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Believe me, THAT I'm aware of. But that's not the strippers. That's the proprietors. And you still haven't answered:
if you've ever BEEN to a strip club, should you then be considered someone of poor judgement such that you should not be considered for elected office?
This is dumb, bro. She was elected by a constituency of morons. This is who should represent them. But her status as a moron has no causal relationship to her employment history. Just like everyone else. Not everyone gets into Ivy League schools, not everyone follows the standard path, but they can still run, still get elected, and still do decent work (that's not what this person is doing, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE). That's why this country rules.
Which is MORE disqualifying: working at a strip club or having a single DUI for which you did no jail time on your record?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Would a teaspoon of rum somehow make it not a hustle? The profit goes to the owner, and the bartender controls the alcohol content, not the stripper. Is bartending a dishonest trade?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
They go around the bar after their dance set, asking guys to buy them a drink. The guy pays $10 for her to have a drink with little or no alcohol in it, making a good profit for the bar owner. It’s a little dishonest, not a huge deal.
What about this strikes you as dishonest on the stripper's part?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I think most strippers have limited options. Either because of their upbringing or the choices they made. Many have drug addictions and some have children when they got pregnant without being married or being financially prepared to have a child. This does not speak well of their judgment.
Fine, but none of this, including the part about the judgement, is necessarily indicative of being an idiot. Some might see it as grit, taking limited options available and making the best of it. I don't know how you're deciding that "many" have drug addictions, and "some have children without being financially prepared" can be said of literally every profession that ever employed a woman. That's what happens when you have unprotected sex, being a stripper has nothing to do with that. And young people make bad decisions, that doesn't make them idiots necessarily.
Really? How big is your sample size? Are you in the industry? How many strippers do you know personally?
I'm not the one throwing around sweeping generalizations about a profession.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No, not even that is true. They hustle drinks. They sell drugs. They offer blow jobs in the back. They accept illegal drugs as pay. They have sex with the club owner to get the job. It is not honest work.
Wow. I'm going to posit that you have a small sample size you're working with here. Maybe that happens in some places, I guess, but it doesn't happen in all of them. And hustling drinks is suddenly a disqualifier? So any woman who's ever worked some dude she didn't go home and fuck after into buying her a drink isn't fit to serve in the halls of congress? Come on man. What's the answer to the question about if people who go to strip clubs? I mean I guess don't vote for them then, if that's what you think, that's your right.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Is stripping honorable work in your view?
It's honest work, provided people aren't coerced into it. I don't get the issue with it. And was she a stripper? Seems unlikely, otherwise the headlines about her would likely all read "former stripper". Why can't someone choose to do it for a living and still have what it takes to be a legislator, exactly? What's the objection? What's DIShonorable about it? Not every stripper is some lost soul, some are women who think "I'm only going to be hot enough to do this for a handful of years, I like showing off my body, and I can make a TON of money doing it." What exactly in there is some sort of disqualification?
Should anyone who's ever patronized a strip club also be disqualified? They're the ones supplying the demand.
There’s a good chance she’s an idiot. She chose to be a stripper, rather than do something less seedy. It shows she is willing to do anything for money.
None of this makes any sense. How do you figure being willing to take off your clothes for money means you'd do "anything" for money? Why is stripping seedier than GOING to a strip club? And what makes you think being a stripper gives someone a good chance at being an idiot, exactly?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I was listing all the elected Republicans who were unfit for office for one reason or another
Being a former strip club employee does not make you unfit for office on its face though. .
Let’s face it, she got elected because she has nice tits.
I'd have to see the exit polling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Of course, and I don't think my list is exhaustive or covers all the bases, so if there's another option, please feel free to add it to the discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Created:
Posted in:
Whenever someone brings up god's love, the problem of evil, free will, etc., I get started thinking about the Christian heaven. The Christian hell is portrayed all over the place in popular culture, for centuries. I think it's because we know quite well what it feels like to suffer! Your Bosch paintings, your renaissance literature, all the way to today, there's no shortage of versions of hell. What about the Christian heaven? Here's a restatement of a topic I did a while ago, and not a lot of serious Christians or believers engaged with it honestly. Obviously open to all.
I can illustrate the problem with the concept of Christian heaven using a mixed family and mixed 'state of graces' or whatever the actual condition is called for getting into heaven (some say you have to be free of sin, some say you just have to accept Jesus, depends on the doctrine, as with all things Christian). Here's the problem, I was wondering how theists solve it, because if it remains unsolved, then as far as I can tell the only good thing about heaven is that it isn't hell. Tertullian agrees.
As a Christian, you fall in love with someone who let's say is Jewish. You go through your lives together, have three children, one of who decides they don't believe in any gods, one of whom decides to be Jewish, one of who is a Christian. For the most part you all lead good lives, by most measures. Then, you get sick and pass away and find yourself in heaven, or right on the doorstep. Your judgement is meted out, and congrats, you get to go to heaven. "So...will my wife be here? I mean maybe not now, but once she passes away. And what about my kids?" you ask, understandably.
St. Peter (I'm ex Catholic!) responds "Sorry, but they cannot get in, at least two of the three children and your wife do not accept Jesus. Good thing for you, and that one kid, you were smart, and accepted him, because otherwise, it would have been hell for you." Wait a minute, you ask, how is my heaven not only eternally missing 60% of my family, but knowing that 60% is being eternally tortured in a lake of fire?
What is the answer? Here are the options I came up with. Please feel free to add or comment.
- (A) No, don't be silly. We're going to give you perfect copies of those people, except they're going to be Christians this time! (And thereby would not be copies; would you know? Would you not eventually notice your Jewish wife is a Christian now?)
- (B) It only seems bad now. When you get inside, we're going to wipe your mind and all your earthly memories, you won't think about them at all! You're going to spend eternity singing praises to god and not remembering anything about your family, friends, or life, but it's really going to feel so good, you won't care about them at all. (In this version of heaven, the entirety of YOU isn't in heaven; the part that loved your family, the part that had friends, the part that experienced your entire life is gone and replaced with a hymn singing angel instead)
- (C) Well, I'm afraid those are the rules. All the good deeds and other stuff, it's all canceled out by the fact they didn't believe in Jesus, and the rules are pretty clear. Sorry man, should have done a better job evangelizing I guess. (Now if you remember them at all, you spend eternity in sadness except you're in heaven)
- (D) No, of course not. They're good people, they lived good lives, so they can get in. (Except now Christian heaven isn't just for Christians, because they're letting in two Jewish people and an atheist who do NOT believe in Jesus)
How does a Christian in a mixed family settle this issue?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
I suppose you can go down a windy road to say that if there was no evil to choose from then there couldn't be a choice between good and evil, therefore evil had to exist in order for people to choose him, and people choosing him makes him happy, so all in all, evil makes him happy. BUT that's not what I am saying by pleasure.
Understood. I guess I would take some issue with the idea that god feels "happy" about anything, because for that to be the case he'd have to be UNhappy about other things, and that's not really how I understand a "perfect" being to be. It's sort of akin to the idea that God can change his mind: to change one's mind would mean to recognize an error of some sort in judgement. To create evil just to provide the illusion of free will seems weird to me. So in your assessment of the problem of evil (I prefer suffering, but either way), you believe god is responsible for creating evil, is therefore aware of it, and chooses not to stop it, is that fair to say?
I've got another idea for a topic for you, regarding heaven, because this "did god make evil" thing always brings it up. It's definitely its own topic though. Up for it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
My theory is that Satan was made and was not a rebellious angel. There is actually no passage in the Bible that states that Lucifer turned into Satan. A lot of people will quote Isaiah 14 in regards to this but it is referring to the King of Babylon, not Satan.
I think a lot of our modern interpretations of hell and Satan are actually from literature outside the bible, like Dante's Inferno and MIlton's Paradise Lost.
My view has always been that God created evil, per the passage that Stephen gave, and the reason he did it was to give us a choice. Choose good or choose evil.
Fair enough. But if you can't speculate on why he chose to provide these options, how can you rule out that "for his pleasure" is one option?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Name one stripper who has been a good legislator, state of federal, in the past 200 years.
LOL, huh??? You're a little all over the map here. Why would I need to do this? I'm not the one implying that this is a terrible legislator or somehow she shouldn't have been elected because she worked at a strip club. I'm just saying pointing it out and then including it in a list of other verifiable crimes that elected officials have been credibly accused of is douchey and that you have a category error. She was employed legally in a business that is legal. She didn't rape anyone. She might be an idiot, but she's not a criminal, and she's not an idiot BECAUSE SHE WORKED IN A STRIP CLUB. I vehemently disagree with her politics, her proposal, and her buffoonery, but none of those should be based on her employment history or education. This is America. All of those people, even ex convicts, are entitled to run for office, that's how it's supposed to work. I just object to your characterization of strippers, or, more accurately, strip club employees. If this is a bartender at a strip club (she's not worth googling), how's that substantively different from what Ocasio-Cortez did before she was elected to the house?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DavidAZ
Can you find your passage that God created evil for his pleasure?
Given any thought to that "problem of evil" we talked about? I only ask because this question reminded me of it. That doesn't address the 'why' though. I guess I would ask do you think god created evil?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Ok, I guess, but how's that move your point forward? You know some people strip and enjoy it, right? Also that there wouldn't be strip clubs if there wasn't a demand by paying customers for them. How's that the stripper's problem? They have a product that the market will pay for. That's capitalism. And how does it in any way reflect on their ability to put forth and advance legislation (your agreement or support of which notwithstanding)? To the below, I say "so what"?
You have had a different experience than what I described? Strippers also offer private lap dances and try to get patrons to buy them drinks.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
THat seems a pretty sweeping generalization of strippers, but I guess that's your experience. Or maybe you're making some sort of ironic statement to get to your punchline? What they're doing is legal. Comparing it to rapists is hyperbolic at the very, very least and intellectually dishonest at worst.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
When we elect people who were prostitutes, grifters, strippers, and alcoholics, and these same people go around pointing the finger at gays, trans, and immigrants as immoral and unworthy, you create a house of hypocrisy that can’t possibly stand.
I don't disagree with the hypocrisy. I disagree with your forum title. Having worked in a strip club in no way disqualifies anyone from doing anything, and whatever you might think of this Florida lady, I would bet a lot of money there are far more concerning things in her character than "used to work in a strip club." Anna Luna was, somehow, duly elected by her constituents, and is doing what she figures they elected her to do. I think it's a waste of time, I think she's a waste of space, but none of that has anything to do with her employment history. Bringing up what people did to make ends meet when they were younger and in a disadvantaged position just seems douchey regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on, if you ask me.
Created:
I'm not sure why working at a strip club at some point in your past would somehow disqualify anyone duly elected to legislate. I mean I think most of those people are morons, but really, working at a strip club in one's past is nowhere near the same shit George Santos did. Strip clubs are honest work, man. This country has enough puritans, no reason to clutch pearls over this. I would imagine you're trying to be provocative, but look at this list you wrote. Two of these are actual crimes, the other three are just characteristics. It doesn't dilute the hypocrisy rampant there, but it just seems weird to object to or denigrate. Not everyone grows up working in standard businesses. That's America.
Republicans are strippers, grifters, divorcees, alcoholics and rapists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Let's say I'm generous and grant this. Please demonstrate this creator is the character described in the bible, which has existed for less than 5000 years, while the universe is demonstrably between 13 and 14 billion years old.First of all, you don't grant this, because this is fact.Second of all, the Bible doesn't say that the earth is 5000-, or 6000-year-old.If we look in revelation, it claims that 1000, years is like one day for God. This is implying that our perception of time is different than Gods.So, for God, the first 7 (or six if your being petty) days of creation, were days, but for us they could have been billions of years.
By "grant" this, I mean I'm not asking you to argue it, we can, for the sake of discussion, agree that intelligent life cannot exist without an intelligent creator. What I'm asking you to do is demonstrate that this intelligent creator is the one you happen to believe in, and not any of the thousands of others that pre-dated the bible. My point about the 5000 years was not that that's how old the bible says the earth is, it's how long it's been around. It seems strange to me, in other words, that human beings have inhabited the earth for somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 years, but Jesus let them sin and burn in hell without ever revealing himself for, conservatively, 98,000 years (2000 years since Jesus died). Doesn't that strike you as strange? Why would he or god do that? According to you, those people are responsible for all of their sins and are therefore in hell. They had no way to know about Jesus at all, no way to figure out if they were sinning, and they worshipped false gods.
Created:
-->
@DavidAZ
Let me guess, is the theme "The Catholic Church is Weird At Best, Awful At Worst"? If so, I agree :).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Inteligent life cannot exist without an intelligent creator. This is true.
Let's say I'm generous and grant this. Please demonstrate this creator is the character described in the bible, which has existed for less than 5000 years, while the universe is demonstrably between 13 and 14 billion years old.
Created:
Posted in:
First of all, it isn't: Love me or else.It is, choose me, so that I can save you from your own sin that you created yourself.
I didn't create sin, or the idea of sin. Whose idea was that? This is just a longer way of saying "love me or else."
You wouldn't go to heaven either way, because you didn't believe in Jesus.
So literally every non Christian created by god over the course of let's say 5,000 years, including people like Iroquois babies, are burning in hell.
t is outside of everything in comprehension.
Yeah, completely agree, except you think you somehow comprehend it, you're explaining it.
if you really genuinely accepted God as your Lord and Savior on your death bed, you would go to heaven, no matter what you have done in your life.
This is justice, then? If I'm a totally good person, don't believe in Jesus, and die in my sleep, then I go to hell. If you murder someone and are really sorry for it and believe in Jesus, you go to heaven. Sound right?
You want to love Jesus, feel free, but don't tell me you're using logic to do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
We are intelligent life in the universe. So, how can unintelligent life, create intelligent life? Thats not how it works.In order for a watch to be made (which is a very complicated piece of equipment) there has to be a watch maker. There is no other way to create it, no matter what the universe throws at it.We are far more intelligent than a watch, and there is no way that any kind of explosion could create our complicated brains that even we cannot understand.
This is just a longer argument from incredulity.
Choosing not to love him then you going to hell, isn't abusive.Let's not forget that we all sin and make bad decisions. And because of those bad decisions, we deserve hell.
It's extortion: love me or else. And if I were to murder someone, and on my deathbed I'm super sorry and really have a genuine conversion experience, accept my lord and savior, do I go to heaven or hell?
Conversely, if I jerk off tonight, don't believe in Jesus, don't repent, then die in my sleep, do I go to heaven?
God doesn't send anyone anywhere.
Who is making the criteria for entry to either realm?
Created: