Wow, that was brilliant. There was some really new stuff that I never thought of before.

ya, that was quite profound

Thing is, though, that conservative anti-gay Christianity (like that spouted Tony Perkins, Mark Driscoll, et al) is usually more supported by scripture than moderate Christianity. This confuses the issue no end.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Thing is, though, that conservative anti-gay Christianity (like that spouted Tony Perkins, Mark Driscoll, et al) is usually more supported by scripture than moderate Christianity. This confuses the issue no end.


If you're looking at Old Testament, then perhaps yes. But not according to the New Testament, where Jesus' message is meant to "trump" the law. See the Sermon on the Mount as to what is expected of those who wish to follow him (i.e. how Christians should act toward one another).

>> ^brycewi19:

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Thing is, though, that conservative anti-gay Christianity (like that spouted Tony Perkins, Mark Driscoll, et al) is usually more supported by scripture than moderate Christianity. This confuses the issue no end.

If you're looking at Old Testament, then perhaps yes. But not according to the New Testament, where Jesus' message is meant to "trump" the law. See the Sermon on the Mount as to what is expected of those who wish to follow him (i.e. how Christians should act toward one another).

You mean this Sermon on the Mount, described in Matthew 5?

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven [...]

(Matthew 5:17-19)

I think there is one flaw with his logic.

The ultra-fundamentalist Christians aren't going to listen to other Christians, just like they aren't going to listen to the GLBT community, aetheists or in fact anyone who doesn't subscribe to their particular form of nutjob doctrine. Liberal Christians might (and probably do) call the wackos out on their bile spewing rants, but the sum effect is virtually nil.

Liberal, progressive Christians have an even harder job justifying their position than the literalists.

Dan's point is very good though, I think all the 'zomg we're the new atheist movement' stuff probably turns the vast majority of not-very-committed (or genuinely committed but somehow still liberal) Christians off.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Thing is, though, that conservative anti-gay Christianity (like that spouted Tony Perkins, Mark Driscoll, et al) is usually more supported by scripture than moderate Christianity. This confuses the issue no end.


It's only confusing for Christians who read the bible, and then try to take a stance based on it. Those who pick a stance, and then search the bible for support of that stance aren't confused in the slightest.

Sadly, I know nobody in the first group.

You left out all the important parts that follow what "fulfilthe law" mean. Like "“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. "

Or "“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Or ““Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

The semen sermon on the mount is one of the more progressive parts of Jesus' ministry. It is slightly irresponsibly to hone in on the one sentence that seems to support a position of regression when it was meant as a progression move with the rest of the sermon. Let us make up an example. Let us say MLK Jr. said something like this "I don't want to change what white people do, I came for a higher purpose, to change what they feel". That would be akin to what the verse I believe you have hijacked says

I am no longer a practicing Christian, btw, but I thought this was worth brining up, as I still have a great respect for people of faith, as Mr. Savage also seems to...for which I am glad.


*Fixed awesome typo

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^brycewi19:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Thing is, though, that conservative anti-gay Christianity (like that spouted Tony Perkins, Mark Driscoll, et al) is usually more supported by scripture than moderate Christianity. This confuses the issue no end.

If you're looking at Old Testament, then perhaps yes. But not according to the New Testament, where Jesus' message is meant to "trump" the law. See the Sermon on the Mount as to what is expected of those who wish to follow him (i.e. how Christians should act toward one another).

You mean this Sermon on the Mount, described in Matthew 5?

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven [...]
(Matthew 5:17-19)

Interesting ideas, but I'm still going to call out Dan Savage on intellectual laziness. Yeah, you do have to qualify your statements, every time, no matter how annoying it seems. Semantics are important. Not everybody has seen or heard everything you've said up to this point. A lot of the audience may be tuning in for the first time. So when a first-time viewer shows up and hears you lambasting Christians, can you really blame them for thinking you mean all Christians? Just be clear and qualify your statements and there won't be any confusion.

Back to his main point: I think up until now for most liberal Christians it has been a problem of apathy--if you weren't gay or didn't personally know someone who was gay, it didn't really seem worth stepping into the fight even though you disagreed with the fundamentalists' interpretations (distortions?) of the Bible. But he makes a good case that the silence hurts everybody. It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of his challenge.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

The semen on the mount is one of the more progressive parts of Jesus' ministry.
Well, "the semen on the mount" certainly *sounds* like one of the more progressive parts of Jesus' ministry. *tries to find the bible GeeSussFreeK reads*

I'm not hijacking a quote; rather, I think it's fairer to say that Jesus is contradicting himself here, which should come as no surprise to anyone else who's read the Bible. The Old Testament Law is binding forever: Genesis 17:19, Leviticus 23:14, Luke 16:17. But it also isn't: Luke 16:16, Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:13.

There is some good stuff in in the Sermon on the Mount about loving thine enemy and not judging others, but it's a bit rich coming from someone who plans to cast all his enemies into a lake of fire forever.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

You left out all the important parts that follow what "fulfilthe law" mean. Like "“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. "
Or "“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Or ““Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
The semen on the mount is one of the more progressive parts of Jesus' ministry. It is slightly irresponsibly to hone in on the one sentence that seems to support a position of regression when it was meant as a progression move with the rest of the sermon. Let us make up an example. Let us say MLK Jr. said something like this "I don't want to change what white people do, I came for a higher purpose, to change what they feel". That would be akin to what the verse I believe you have hijacked says
I am no longer a practicing Christian, btw, but I thought this was worth brining up, as I still have a great respect for people of faith, as Mr. Savage also seems to...for which I am glad.

Buhahah, awesome type-o is awesome. Come, take a closer walk with Me, ewwwww.

And I don't think I ever read anything about a lake of fire forever. There is a lake of fire that people get thrown into and is later destroyed. I never did where the idea of eternal torment came from. What I read was just annihilation, complete destruction. Basically, to be rendered into a state of non-existence. I could be mistaken, I don't really keep up with my bible anymore. The bible is full of much larger problems for me, like God violating his own description of love for starters.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.

If God claims to love everyone, then he can not act to anyone outsides these contexts. He does, many times...big problem.


But back on track. I think it is pretty impossible to manage Christianity like that. I mean, are Atheists going around to people like Hitches and Dawkins and telling them to tone it down? No, I think it is more likely that we just alienate ourselves from people we don't agree with intellectuality while occasionally talking about them behind their back and reaching out to people whom we think will be sympathetic to our case. I mean, I rail against this "hate on faith" atheist movement, but I feel like I am a very lone voice.

People have a hard time reconciling Gods judgement and love, but in Jesus Christ we have the evidence. God has made a provision through His Son for any person to be forgiven for their sins and be declared not guilty. It doesn't matter who you are or what you've done; in Christ there is no condemnation. God does love everyone and is willing to give eternal life to anyone who comes to His Son for forgiveness.

God has given clear warnings about sin and He isn't allowing it into Heaven. If you refuse to turn from your sins and repent, you are under judgement. It's not that God wants to punish you, it's that no sin will go unpunished. Unless we come to Christ and obtain forgiveness, we will be held accountable for every last one of them.

I have seen every excuse under the sun for why people refuse to do that, but it just comes down to one thing; accountability. People want to be a law onto themselves. "Do as thou wilt". Well, I have to tell you that this attitude is spiritual suicide. Sin only begets death..it is literal..if you die in your sins you are dead in spirit, and that's forever. It's only the word of God that leads to eternal life whose rules are there to protect you, not to condemn you. This is why Christ said:

Matthew 7:13-14

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Buhahah, awesome type-o is awesome. Come, take a closer walk with Me, ewwwww.
And I don't think I ever read anything about a lake of fire forever. There is a lake of fire that people get thrown into and is later destroyed. I never did where the idea of eternal torment came from. What I read was just annihilation, complete destruction. Basically, to be rendered into a state of non-existence. I could be mistaken, I don't really keep up with my bible anymore. The bible is full of much larger problems for me, like God violating his own description of love for starters.
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
If God claims to love everyone, then he can not act to anyone outsides these contexts. He does, many times...big problem.
But back on track. I think it is pretty impossible to manage Christianity like that. I mean, are Atheists going around to people like Hitches and Dawkins and telling them to tone it down? No, I think it is more likely that we just alienate ourselves from people we don't agree with intellectuality while occasionally talking about them behind their back and reaching out to people whom we think will be sympathetic to our case. I mean, I rail against this "hate on faith" atheist movement, but I feel like I am a very lone voice.

@shinyblurry

Sigh, I was trying to avoid being drawn into a theological conversation about love and judgement, but I guess I asked for it.

There are some major theological and philosophical problems with your resolution of justice and love. Let me go into a couple of them. But before that, let me say that I am not hatting on your faith right now. These are just my personal waxing on Christianity. I am no some master of theology, but I am also not naive of the bible and basic logical constructs. Understand, that I am not trying to drag you down or give you excess flack, you have had your fair share of that lately. BUUUUT since you did take the time to write something else, I thought I would return that favor.

First and foremost, you can't resolve what is unresolvable. Love and Justice are pitted against one another in certain instances. There comes a point where you can't be loving and just...you must make a choice. For instance, if your wife cheats on you, you have a choice. You can either forgive her or your can choose not to ignore it and break off the relationship. This has a few oversimplifications like, you could still be with them but also hold it against them, but that goes against the other idea of love, which is forgiveness (so they wouldn't be in a loving relationship anymore). At the end of the world, God makes an arbitrary choice, he decides to not love people who didn't accept Christ, and decides to continue to love those whom did. For the damned, the statement of Corinthians "Love never fails" surely has lost all meaning to them...love wasn't enough.

Second of all, if God is ok with transferring blame from those who are damned to those who are not, then he is forbidden to be the referee in any gaming event I control. It is a mockery to the ideals of justices to let the innocent suffer for the deeds of the wicked. I can't think of a MORE unjust act. The entire "idea" of salvation is a rosy picture. But if you actually care about justice, the idea of salvation flies right in the face of it. Either God isn't as loving as he would say he is, or he doesn't care about justice as much as he says he does. One must be true. God must either not be all loving, or not care about perfect justice. There is no need for judgement if both those things are not true (fucken double negatives!). Would you punish your neighbors dog for peeing on your rug when it was your own dog? Punishment is non-transferable if you really care about justice, period.

Also, it is a mockery to justice that Jesus still gets to go to heaven, even after being made sinful in our stead. Let us take another example. Let us say I am a murderer. I start racking up the kills, become the number one murderer of all times. Then, I get caught. On my behalf, the richest, most affluent political figure in the world decides to accept all the punishment for my crimes. For some crazy ass reason, everyone goes along with this idea. Being so rich and powerful, he is able to get all the charges dismissed. So he and I get away with the most hideous crime of all time, and no punishment is dealt out, to anyone. Is this justice? If it is, God once again can't be the ref any any sporting events I control. Jesus was made imperfect for our sake. Imperfect things do not go to heaven. Jesus should not be in heaven, period. If he is, then the God never really cared about the charges anyway, or doesn't really take justice very seriously.

I also don't understand how the Bible is able to claim the punishment for sin is death, when everyone dies anyway...even the saved. O ok, so I guess their spirit gets to live on or something, but who's spirit died in their steads? I can tell you it wasn't Jesus's, because he is supposedly chilling in heaven. The fact is, SOME will suffer death from sin, others will not. The saved are a special case where the rules needed for their salvation aren't needed because no one is going to die from their sins anyway. I mean Jesus might of literally died, but we all do that, so Jesus didn't save anything there. What you mean is a figurative death, and Jesus is surely not figuratively dead either. So no one died for Christian's sins, and no one died for the damned sins...sucks to be the damned. Once again, God can't see over any sporting events I frequent.

Also, I don't think the Bible supports the claim of "It's not that God wants to punish you...". For instance, in Romans it talks about how God specifically makes vessels of wrath.

"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?"

They have a name for that in Chess, they are called pawns. And while Chess is only a game, it does seem to me that God is more playing a game with us than loves us or cares about us, from the bibles perspective that is. Romans gives way to this even more with:

"“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”"

Reasons? I want to, I'm God, shut up. Misunderstanding, I don't think so.

"One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"

This is the kind of flack an adult gives out when a child catches him doing something wrong. And while in many cases, it is the child's very naive understandings of the world that lead to this situations, many times, they are justified in the question and more importantly, and answer.

I should point out, that I used to be a 5 point Calvinist. Formerly, I used to look at Romans as the great justifier of predestination. It was a power verse of immeasurable theological insight. When I read it now, I have only sadness. It isn't like this is a trivial question to ask God, but in Romans, he brushes off our very important question like he doesn't give a flying fuck. Sadness. Granted it is Paul, not Jesus, but it is still "His word". Deepening sadness.

I have about 6 more points but I have already gone on for far to long. I hope this doesn't get stolen by atheists as ammunition to fire against Christians. Nothing would make more sad than my own personal insights being used to hurt someone. These are but a few of the troubles that lead me away from Christianity being the answer for my life. I actually hope I am wrong. I hope that other people will get to enjoy heaven, even without me. I would hope that there is an actual just God out there, looking out for us, protecting us, making sure the wrongness in the world is "taken care of". But as for wrongness, I only start to see more and more of it in the bible. What used to be a shining beacon of hope, is now a book of how not to care about justice and love.

To this day, though, 1 Corinthians 13 is still what I use to define love. It is also the root of my deconversion. The love I see in 1 Corinthians 13 does not exist in the God I read about in the rest of the bible. That is all, sorry if I cause you any pain or strife with my words. Or, indeed, anyone other person of faith that reads this. If that be the case, than I have failed in great way.

I'm not offended by anything you said. I deal with innumerable rejections on practically every conceivable angle, from the pagan to the satanist to the atheist to the nihilist to yes, the ex-christian. The things they all have in common is the misunderstanding of biblical truth, the mission of Jesus Christ, the state of creation, good and evil, and the sin nature. I'll try to answer to your statements.

Love and justice are not pitted against eachother and I am not sure why you say that. For instance, would it be loving to allow your children to just do whatever they want without consequence? We see the kind of children this creates every day; ones with no morals, empathy or wisdom. Children need boundries or they're going to hurt themselves. It's up to the parent to set those boundries, and enforce them. If you give a child a rule without enforcing it, they will just roll right over it and you. Now, take it up a notch. What kind of society would we have if we didn't have punishment for capital crimes? People will argue against the justice of a Holy God but not blink when someone gets sentenced to life for murder. How is it any different? That's every bit as permanent as Gods justice, ultimately, yet we as a society are okay with it.

You talk about arbitrary choices, but it's people making the choice, not God. If it were Gods choice exclusively, He could just override everyones will. However, If God overrode your choice, would that be love? You know it wouldn't. Yet, He keeps the door open your entire life. He is constantly reminding you and warning you, and not only that, but looking out for you. Love is a two way street. If you refuse to accept Gods forgiveness, how can you blame Him for not forgiving you? It's your personal choice and your personal responsibility to own up to your sins.

Your statements about Jesus fall a bit short as to the specifics of Gods plan. Far from being a mockery of justice, it was a perfection of it. For there to be perfect justice, every sin must be punished. For there to be perfect love, everyone must have a chance to be redeemed. Both of these seeming contridictions are reconcilled in Jesus Christ. I'll explain..

This is a fallen creation, due to the sin of one man, Adam. It is imperfect. Thereby, everyone born into it inherits this imperfection, which is the sin nature. God gave us the law to give us the standard of behavior which leads to perfection, and thus back into perfect relationship with God. The problem was that no man was capable of fulfilling this law, because Gods perfect justice requires a sinless life. Jesus was the first to be perfectly obedient to God and lead a sinless life, thus fulfilling the law. The law was given because of sin and was fulfilled by the sinlessness of Christ. Just as one mans sin caused creation to fall, one mans sinlessness redeemed it. Because He perfectly obeyed the Fathers will and fulfilled the law, when He took on our sins He earned no condemnation for them. It's because of His sinlessness that He was able to be the perfect sacrifice.

So now because of all this, man has a chance to be perfected and again enjoy perfect relationship with God. Jesus made a way for mankind to be reconcilled to God. Justice has been done on the issue of the original sin. So now, this is justice: that the one who rejects Christ stands condemned. The only way to escape punishment is be saved by the grace of God. That is what justice is after Christ fulfilled the law and broke the power of death. We are spiritually perfected by the indwelling of Gods Holy Spirit, so that we are remade in the image of Jesus Christ. This is what it means to be a new creation in Christ, to be born again. Thus we are no longer held accountable to the law, because the penalty has already been paid. Rather, we are under grace.

Yes, God is sovereign, and He has every right to judge His creation as He chooses. Yet, He Himself has never violated any of the rules he has laid down. That gives Him justification. Also, you seem to think people are innocent, when they're not. There is no one good, not one. How shall an unrighteous sinner judge a Holy God? Read the book of job for what a ridiculous proposition that is. He is the author of history and our lives..how shall a child instruct Him? We don't have any right to tell God what to do..none of us are justified. We're all hypocrites. Your personal sin makes you completely unqualified to judge God, yet here you are saying He is a hypocrite and a liar and a fool.

Gods judgement became a stumbling block for you, and so you abandoned Him and now claim He isn't worthy of your love. Yet, has He ever stopped loving you? Has He written you off like you did Him? Who is really worthy here, and who isn't? If you had just persevered through your misunderstandings, the answers would have been forthcoming. Yet you gave up and then your thoughts became futile and your heart was darkened. This is always about personal accountability to God. Everything you've mentioned here is an excuse for something you failed to live up to. Sorry if that is harsh but I have to tell you the truth. God is Holy, and worthy of worship and all praise. He is worthy of our love, though we are not worthy of His. Yet, even though you abandoned Him the door is still open. It is only your refusal to be reconciled and obey Him that is causing this issue of your understanding. Being an ex-christian who knows the bible, you should know that. I pray you find the truth and repent and be reconciled once more.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
Sigh, I was trying to avoid being drawn into a theological conversation about love and judgement, but I guess I asked for it.
There are some major theological and philosophical problems with your resolution of justice and love. Let me go into a couple of them. But before that, let me say that I am not hatting on your faith right now. These are just my personal waxing on Christianity. I am no some master of theology, but I am also not naive of the bible and basic logical constructs. Understand, that I am not trying to drag you down or give you excess flack, you have had your fair share of that lately. BUUUUT since you did take the time to write something else, I thought I would return that favor.
First and foremost, you can't resolve what is unresolvable. Love and Justice are pitted against one another in certain instances. There comes a point where you can't be loving and just...you must make a choice. For instance, if your wife cheats on you, you have a choice. You can either forgive her or your can choose not to ignore it and break off the relationship. This has a few oversimplifications like, you could still be with them but also hold it against them, but that goes against the other idea of love, which is forgiveness (so they wouldn't be in a loving relationship anymore). At the end of the world, God makes an arbitrary choice, he decides to not love people who didn't accept Christ, and decides to continue to love those whom did. For the damned, the statement of Corinthians "Love never fails" surely has lost all meaning to them...love wasn't enough.
Second of all, if God is ok with transferring blame from those who are damned to those who are not, then he is forbidden to be the referee in any gaming event I control. It is a mockery to the ideals of justices to let the innocent suffer for the deeds of the wicked. I can't think of a MORE unjust act. The entire "idea" of salvation is a rosy picture. But if you actually care about justice, the idea of salvation flies right in the face of it. Either God isn't as loving as he would say he is, or he doesn't care about justice as much as he says he does. One must be true. God must either not be all loving, or not care about perfect justice. There is no need for judgement if both those things are not true (fucken double negatives!). Would you punish your neighbors dog for peeing on your rug when it was your own dog? Punishment is non-transferable if you really care about justice, period.
Also, it is a mockery to justice that Jesus still gets to go to heaven, even after being made sinful in our stead. Let us take another example. Let us say I am a murderer. I start racking up the kills, become the number one murderer of all times. Then, I get caught. On my behalf, the richest, most affluent political figure in the world decides to accept all the punishment for my crimes. For some crazy ass reason, everyone goes along with this idea. Being so rich and powerful, he is able to get all the charges dismissed. So he and I get away with the most hideous crime of all time, and no punishment is dealt out, to anyone. Is this justice? If it is, God once again can't be the ref any any sporting events I control. Jesus was made imperfect for our sake. Imperfect things do not go to heaven. Jesus should not be in heaven, period. If he is, then the God never really cared about the charges anyway, or doesn't really take justice very seriously.
I also don't understand how the Bible is able to claim the punishment for sin is death, when everyone dies anyway...even the saved. O ok, so I guess their spirit gets to live on or something, but who's spirit died in their steads? I can tell you it wasn't Jesus's, because he is supposedly chilling in heaven. The fact is, SOME will suffer death from sin, others will not. The saved are a special case where the rules needed for their salvation aren't needed because no one is going to die from their sins anyway. I mean Jesus might of literally died, but we all do that, so Jesus didn't save anything there. What you mean is a figurative death, and Jesus is surely not figuratively dead either. So no one died for Christian's sins, and no one died for the damned sins...sucks to be the damned. Once again, God can't see over any sporting events I frequent.
Also, I don't think the Bible supports the claim of "It's not that God wants to punish you...". For instance, in Romans it talks about how God specifically makes vessels of wrath.
"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?"
They have a name for that in Chess, they are called pawns. And while Chess is only a game, it does seem to me that God is more playing a game with us than loves us or cares about us, from the bibles perspective that is. Romans gives way to this even more with:
"“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”"
Reasons? I want to, I'm God, shut up. Misunderstanding, I don't think so.
"One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"
This is the kind of flack an adult gives out when a child catches him doing something wrong. And while in many cases, it is the child's very naive understandings of the world that lead to this situations, many times, they are justified in the question and more importantly, and answer.
I should point out, that I used to be a 5 point Calvinist. Formerly, I used to look at Romans as the great justifier of predestination. It was a power verse of immeasurable theological insight. When I read it now, I have only sadness. It isn't like this is a trivial question to ask God, but in Romans, he brushes off our very important question like he doesn't give a flying fuck. Sadness. Granted it is Paul, not Jesus, but it is still "His word". Deepening sadness.
I have about 6 more points but I have already gone on for far to long. I hope this doesn't get stolen by atheists as ammunition to fire against Christians. Nothing would make more sad than my own personal insights being used to hurt someone. These are but a few of the troubles that lead me away from Christianity being the answer for my life. I actually hope I am wrong. I hope that other people will get to enjoy heaven, even without me. I would hope that there is an actual just God out there, looking out for us, protecting us, making sure the wrongness in the world is "taken care of". But as for wrongness, I only start to see more and more of it in the bible. What used to be a shining beacon of hope, is now a book of how not to care about justice and love.
To this day, though, 1 Corinthians 13 is still what I use to define love. It is also the root of my deconversion. The love I see in 1 Corinthians 13 does not exist in the God I read about in the rest of the bible. That is all, sorry if I cause you any pain or strife with my words. Or, indeed, anyone other person of faith that reads this. If that be the case, than I have failed in great way.

Love and justice are indeed pitted at each other. Are you saying a parent could toss their child into a pit of flame, out of love? I really fail to see any parallel with this to parenting. A large segment of parenting is about avoiding the temporary pains of this life. The final judgment is anything but that. It isn't like parenting, at all. It is about the end of your life, be it for heaven or hell. Nothing could be more final. There are no parenting situations that come to mind, stay, a parent being on the jury for their child. If you are saying that a parent could say they love their child while also sending them to hell, I don't think that is very loving. And then, surely, "Love never fails" is false. If it is false, then there isn't much power in love, and not much use in God claiming it conquers all, as it doesn't...because people are going to hell.

To me, talking about society isn't taking it up a notch from parenting, it is taking it down a notch. I care much less about random people than my friends and family. I could kill strangers much more easily than my family members...because I love my family. I most likely wouldn't be able to kill my mother if she turned into a zombie and tried to eat me, because I love her. However, God seems to be able to throw people into a lake of fire by the millions, perhaps billions, or if the earth goes on long enough, trillions. This is an unfathomable amount of suffering. If a loving being could do this, I wouldn't want to be loved by it.

If peoples choices are binding God, he isn't a very powerful God, nor is he the God I read about in the bible. As I said, I was a 5 point Calvinist. Is God overriding Pharaoh suddenly blank from the bible now? I really disagree with the whole idea of libertarian free will. I don't think it exists, and moreover, the idea that humans who's condition is COMPLETELY based on need would have even the slightest measure of libertarian free will is preposterousness.

I completely disagree that love is a 2 way street. One of my favorite lines from Babylon 5 is, as this love sick fool lay dying, he murmured "All love is unrequited love!" Stating the dubious nature of love. That we seldom choose those who we love, but it doesn't matter how great the pain of them not returning it is, you still love them. Like I said, I don't care if my mother turned into a zombie and tried to eat me, I would love her still even though she is incapable of it. If God isn't as capable as I am to love zombies, then I don't want his love.

Then I also don't understand how all the sudden my sins are my responsibility, when the whole idea of Jesus is completely irresponsibility. As soon as you accept Jesus, the logical implications are irresponsibility. Only the damned are responsible and somehow that is supposed to be fair. Jesus died for everyone sins supposedly. He then must turn around and deny people access to salvation because they denied him. That is the same as me burring the pick axe in my mothers head as she comes for my brains. She didn't say she loved me, time to embed this in her cerebral cortex.

The entire metaphysical aspect of the bibles justice is very illogical to me. How does one inherit imperfection? Why is it so that perfect can't come from imperfect. You are making a fallacy of quantificational logic, mainly, the Existential Fallacy, or, putting the cart before the horse. I have no reason to accept these arbitrary positions. They aren't logical, therefore, I am not required to accept them.

Then the other main problem. You can't call something that wasn't a sacrifice a sacrifice. If he can't be judged, then no amount of justice was done. If I bestowed all my crimes on someone with diplomatic immunity, I hardly would say justice is done, more like avoided. He was never going to hell, he was never dying for our sins, if the payment of sins is blood and there is no blood, where is the justice?

Original sin? Once again, holding people to account for things they had no part in is of the highest level of injustice. To say everyone has sinned because one person has sinned isn't logical, it isn't something that I have to agree to. I would have to be compelled to believe so, and there is no sufficient reason to do so, not from what I read anyway.

Once again, how is what Jesus did in anyway logically connected to Adam. They were both men, ok, they both liked bacon, sure...but Jesus isn't Adam. Jesus was a God man, how is he even remotely similar in nature to be able to transfer sins onto. If that be the case, my computer...err actually, lets not use the computer. My Soda can has lead a sinless live, so to my cats...never mind they are the devil too, so to my dogs. I wish to transfer my sins on to them.

Ahh wait. I guess you said they needed to be perfect to fulfill the law . But wait, why? If you sin, are you sinning or me? If I am held to account for only my actions, how are the actions of Adam being grandfathered on to me, but not your's? Why do sins transfer sometimes and not others? Why does being perfect mean you get to abolish the law for everyone, then turn around and apply it back to them? If the law is "fulfilled in Jesus" how it is then being reapplied? Actually, the HOW isn't needed, the WHY is? Why would Jesus condemn people if he just did away with the law? Spite? Is Jesus unable to love those who don't submit to him? I love all sorts of strangers that never loved me back, am I greater than Jesus?

I also don't agree with the idea that "He Himself has never violated any of the rules he has laid down". For instance; "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy" ... "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God". Did God love the Israelites as he defines love for us? It doesn't seem so. There are countless examples of him destroying Israel because they worshiped a goat or something to that effect. God's actions nearly always conflict with the nearly perfect wording of love in 1st corth. Only Jesus comes close to living up to this letter of love via some of his actions, but others, like storming the money changers, reeks men acting like men, not Gods acting out of love.

You are also arguing points of the bible to me that I don't hold to have actually existed. The book of Job being one of them. The story of Adam and Eve seems equally unlikely. Noah seems so hard to believe that I always just pretended those parts of the bible never existed when I was a Christian. They always haunted me, though. I can't honestly believe that a Guy got a large boat and packed up a billion animals without them all eating each other and shitting themselves into sickness for 40 days. Then I am supposed to believe, yet again, that the earth was repopulated by a genetically unstable amount of people.

To me, God was never real. I always wanted him to be real. Seeing so much injustice in the world made me want some person whom "makes it all right" appealing. But there is so much wrong done in the bible, under God's command no less, that I seems unlikely as a source of hope for me any longer. How many people did God ordered slaughtered in the old testament? I have seen the number placed, if you include things Sodom and Gomorrah, the firstborn Egyptian children, and such, it is around 25 million. I haven't double check that, but it sounds like a good number to start with.

Written off God, no. Like I said, I hope not to be correct. Worthiness isn't even a question. I don't thing much of me, if you knew anything about me instead of calling me arrogant by implication. The truth is, you sound like a very young Christian. I don't mean that in a bad way, mind you. But the way you speak to me is like that of dogmatic conversation and less than thought provoking. There isn't a single word you have said that I haven't heard from a sermon somewhere, or even, one that I gave myself to others. Did I mention that I have pastored people? Did I mention that I once had a small group ministry that was very successful.

In closing, I think you are conversing AT me rather than WITH me. Or so it seems, from the rather dogmatic reply form this took. While I know as a Christian your answers must be based on some amount of bible, the bible hold very little authority over the way I think now. As such, trying to appeal to me with justifications that ONLY come from the bible, like original sin take a leap of faith, one that I have denounced. You expect me to use circular logic, which I will refuse to do anymore with myself. I did that for years already, I am not going to spend any more time on it.

I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on this. I am resolved to drop the subject, unless you want to have the final word...but I most likely wont reply. I only expect us to chase our tails. With you quoting bible philosophy to me, and me saying that isn't the way it MUST be, I need convencing...and round and round we go. I don't want to say I have heard it all, because I surely haven't, but all the logic you just hit me with is stuff I have thought about, extensively, and yet still am where I am today. I don't make a lot of money, I don't have lots of possessions, but what I DO have is literally thought years of considering my religions positions. I don't take them lightly, and I didn't care for the slight, though understandable, tone change at the end of your statements; like I was just foolishly doing this with no consideration. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not young, not getting younger, and have and will always be thinking on this subject.

Over and out...must get more beer!

There are two problems with that particular part of your quote. The first is that the God of the Bible seems to deal out unbelievably harsh punishments for the supposed sins that are committed. Oh, you ate a forbidden apple? Well now I'm going to cast you out into a world where you'll have to suffer the pains of hunger, death and childbirth! Nevermind that a snake talked Eve into taking the apple or that Eve tricked Adam into eating it. Nevermind that I never explained what was so bad about eating the fruit. All sins (and let's be clear, by "sin" we are really saying not doing what I told you to do) must be punished! Mercilessly! Regardless of the circumstances!

That isn't love--that's megalomaniac and tyrannic authoritarianism.

The second problem I have with that statement is that it's just such an archaic worldview--that people won't do bad things because they fear the impassive, unyielding punishment they will receive if they are caught. Maybe 4000 years ago, in a world where the strongest grabbed power and arbitrarily made the rules for all the others, that kind of worldview made sense but not anymore. Most people living in a modern society like the U.S. or Japan don't steal. That's not because the law or some deity says we can't--it's because we have enough reasoning abilities to work out how it would feel if someone stole from us, what kind of effect it would have on society if everyone stole from everyone else, and so forth.

Those people who don't figure these things out for themselves and decide to steal do need to learn there are consequences for their actions (by being arrested and sent to jail) but the punishment often has very little effect on changing their future behavior. Why? Because punishment alone is not very effective at changing people's behavior. Instead of learning to not engage in that behavior, people learn how to get better at not getting caught in the first place.

Reasoning with people(something the God of the Bible very rarely seems to do) and rewarding positive behaviors, in addition to holding people accountable for their actions, has been shown to be a great way to get people to change. One of the tragedies of our modern world is that the criminal justice system, much like the Biblical God apparently, is much more concerned with meting out punishment than in actually trying to reform people.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's not that God wants to punish you, it's that no sin will go unpunished.

God damn there's some huge ejaculations, semens almost cumming out of you lot. Who would have thought a queer blowing off some christians could have caused such an orgy of banging at the keyboard. It's a metaphorical desert of paragraph sized dunes for anyone following this thread so I'll let Epicurus keep it brief.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

LOL It's like the argument for an all loving, omnipotent god was destroyed before Jesus was even born.

Note: This isn't why I'm not religious. I don't believe because I wasn't indoctrinated as a small child. That and the booze and drugs are still working for me da dum Ching1

Now before you, dear reader, set of oncemore into the desert of hopelessly convoluted diatribes, fill your camelskin bladders at the endlessly refreshing oasis of Bill Hicks, I believe named that after the comedian though I can't be sure of the chronology.

"The whole image is that eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love. That's the message we're brought up with, isn't it? Believe or die! Thank you, forgiving Lord, for all those options."

Bill Hicks - 16 December 1961 – 26 February 1994

Religion ranks at the lowest of Kohlberg's Moral Stages, which involves following immutable laws which are inherently correct because a higher power has handed them down; evidence of their correctness is that you get punished for violating the laws.

http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/kohlberg.htm

@geesusfreek

Love and justice are indeed pitted at each other. Are you saying a parent could toss their child into a pit of flame, out of love? I really fail to see any parallel with this to parenting. A large segment of parenting is about avoiding the temporary pains of this life. The final judgment is anything but that. It isn't like parenting, at all. It is about the end of your life, be it for heaven or hell. Nothing could be more final. There are no parenting situations that come to mind, stay, a parent being on the jury for their child. If you are saying that a parent could say they love their child while also sending them to hell, I don't think that is very loving. And then, surely, "Love never fails" is false. If it is false, then there isn't much power in love, and not much use in God claiming it conquers all, as it doesn't...because people are going to hell.

To me, talking about society isn't taking it up a notch from parenting, it is taking it down a notch. I care much less about random people than my friends and family. I could kill strangers much more easily than my family members...because I love my family. I most likely wouldn't be able to kill my mother if she turned into a zombie and tried to eat me, because I love her. However, God seems to be able to throw people into a lake of fire by the millions, perhaps billions, or if the earth goes on long enough, trillions. This is an unfathomable amount of suffering. If a loving being could do this, I wouldn't want to be loved by it.

Lets say you have a child who is a murderous psychopath and another child who is perfectly obedient. Lets say that whenever you get these two children together, the murderer tries to harm the other child and that child lives in continual terror and fear. What is more loving in this circumstance? To tolerate the unrepentant murderer and ruin the other childs life, or to cast the murderer out? You can give the murderer all the hugs in the world, it wouldn't necessarily change his behavior. Love is an act of will, it is not something you can force or program into someone. Unless the murderer wants to change, there isn't going to be any relationship with so ever, let alone trust, and you couldn't trust this murderer no matter how much you loved him.

It is more loving to protect the other child and cast the murderer out than to ruin everyone elses lives for someone who refuses to change. God could love that murderer, and does..it is precisely because people don't want Gods love that they choose spiritual seperation from Him. You limit God and act like He doesn't give people an honest choice..but you don't seem to understand how wicked people actually are. It's because they prefer their sins and choose to be seperated from God that they end up in hell. There isn't going to be anyone there going "you got the wrong guy!"

If peoples choices are binding God, he isn't a very powerful God, nor is he the God I read about in the bible. As I said, I was a 5 point Calvinist. Is God overriding Pharaoh suddenly blank from the bible now? I really disagree with the whole idea of libertarian free will. I don't think it exists, and moreover, the idea that humans who's condition is COMPLETELY based on need would have even the slightest measure of libertarian free will is preposterousness.

I completely disagree that love is a 2 way street. One of my favorite lines from Babylon 5 is, as this love sick fool lay dying, he murmured "All love is unrequited love!" Stating the dubious nature of love. That we seldom choose those who we love, but it doesn't matter how great the pain of them not returning it is, you still love them. Like I said, I don't care if my mother turned into a zombie and tried to eat me, I would love her still even though she is incapable of it. If God isn't as capable as I am to love zombies, then I don't want his love.

Then I also don't understand how all the sudden my sins are my responsibility, when the whole idea of Jesus is completely irresponsibility. As soon as you accept Jesus, the logical implications are irresponsibility. Only the damned are responsible and somehow that is supposed to be fair. Jesus died for everyone sins supposedly. He then must turn around and deny people access to salvation because they denied him. That is the same as me burring the pick axe in my mothers head as she comes for my brains. She didn't say she loved me, time to embed this in her cerebral cortex.

Again, love is an act of will. When someone tells you that they don't love you anymore it is because they choose not to. It's not because the feelings dried up, it is because their will is against it. God didn't create robots, otherwise He wouldn't care what people did. If they did anything wrong He would only have Himself to blame. In your example of the Pharoh, God knew the Pharohs heart. What God caused him to do was already in his heart.

The way you're seeing justice has to do with the law. Justice is only obtained through Christ. People are responsible for their sins only because they refuse to come to Christ to be forgiven. He offers them the choice and if they refuse then they have to face Gods judgement on their own merits. It's what they're choosing, not what God is denying.

The entire metaphysical aspect of the bibles justice is very illogical to me. How does one inherit imperfection? Why is it so that perfect can't come from imperfect. You are making a fallacy of quantificational logic, mainly, the Existential Fallacy, or, putting the cart before the horse. I have no reason to accept these arbitrary positions. They aren't logical, therefore, I am not required to accept them.

Then the other main problem. You can't call something that wasn't a sacrifice a sacrifice. If he can't be judged, then no amount of justice was done. If I bestowed all my crimes on someone with diplomatic immunity, I hardly would say justice is done, more like avoided. He was never going to hell, he was never dying for our sins, if the payment of sins is blood and there is no blood, where is the justice?

Original sin? Once again, holding people to account for things they had no part in is of the highest level of injustice. To say everyone has sinned because one person has sinned isn't logical, it isn't something that I have to agree to. I would have to be compelled to believe so, and there is no sufficient reason to do so, not from what I read anyway.

It's not suprising you don't understand because these truths are spiritually discerned. God is the source of perfection. He is the perfect one and always has been. The only way something could be perfect is if it always was perfect. If it was imperfect at any time, it could not meet the definition of perfect. So something which is imperfect could only ever create imperfection. When man sinned, He created imperfection and became spiritually seperated from God. From that time until judgement day, all of Creation is in an imperfect state until it is completely reconciled and entirely remade. That is what the judgement is all about. Sin will be plucked out like it never existed. Man will be remade in Gods perfection and be restored.

Jesus could have been judged, if He had sinned. Remember He was tempted of the devil to abandon his ministry. If He had failed, Gods plan would have failed and would have incurred Gods judgement and earned condemnation.

People are held accountable for their own sins. Adams sin is why creation is in the state its in. Our personal sin is what determines where we are going. It doesn't really matter what state creation is in when you are born. You have the same chance of spending eternity with God as Adam did. There is no injustice there at all.

Once again, how is what Jesus did in anyway logically connected to Adam. They were both men, ok, they both liked bacon, sure...but Jesus isn't Adam. Jesus was a God man, how is he even remotely similar in nature to be able to transfer sins onto. If that be the case, my computer...err actually, lets not use the computer. My Soda can has lead a sinless live, so to my cats...never mind they are the devil too, so to my dogs. I wish to transfer my sins on to them.

Ahh wait. I guess you said they needed to be perfect to fulfill the law . But wait, why? If you sin, are you sinning or me? If I am held to account for only my actions, how are the actions of Adam being grandfathered on to me, but not your's? Why do sins transfer sometimes and not others? Why does being perfect mean you get to abolish the law for everyone, then turn around and apply it back to them? If the law is "fulfilled in Jesus" how it is then being reapplied? Actually, the HOW isn't needed, the WHY is? Why would Jesus condemn people if he just did away with the law? Spite? Is Jesus unable to love those who don't submit to him? I love all sorts of strangers that never loved me back, am I greater than Jesus?

I also don't agree with the idea that "He Himself has never violated any of the rules he has laid down". For instance; "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy" ... "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God". Did God love the Israelites as he defines love for us? It doesn't seem so. There are countless examples of him destroying Israel because they worshiped a goat or something to that effect. God's actions nearly always conflict with the nearly perfect wording of love in 1st corth. Only Jesus comes close to living up to this letter of love via some of his actions, but others, like storming the money changers, reeks men acting like men, not Gods acting out of love.

Adam enjoyed a perfection of relationship with God in the garden. So before the fall, their natures were similar. Jesus was also a man and was capable of sin.

Hebrew 2:14

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

He also imputed His divinity into man to restore us to perfection.

Again, you're held accountable to your own sins..you have as much opportunity as Adam did. Jesus didn't abolish the law, He fulfilled it. It isn't being reapplied, it is still in place. Apart from Christ you are judged, but through Him we are declared not guilty. That is the fulcrum of justice in this world.

God never failed to love the israelites; indeed He corrects those that He loves. To say God wasn't patient or kind with the israelites would be a huge stretch of the imagination. Also, in regards to Jesus, He had every right to be angry at how His Fathers temple had been defiled. Do you consider anger in God as disqualifying Him from being loving? You can be angry at someone and still love them, can't you?

You are also arguing points of the bible to me that I don't hold to have actually existed. The book of Job being one of them. The story of Adam and Eve seems equally unlikely. Noah seems so hard to believe that I always just pretended those parts of the bible never existed when I was a Christian. They always haunted me, though. I can't honestly believe that a Guy got a large boat and packed up a billion animals without them all eating each other and shitting themselves into sickness for 40 days. Then I am supposed to believe, yet again, that the earth was repopulated by a genetically unstable amount of people.

To me, God was never real. I always wanted him to be real. Seeing so much injustice in the world made me want some person whom "makes it all right" appealing. But there is so much wrong done in the bible, under God's command no less, that I seems unlikely as a source of hope for me any longer. How many people did God ordered slaughtered in the old testament? I have seen the number placed, if you include things Sodom and Gomorrah, the firstborn Egyptian children, and such, it is around 25 million. I haven't double check that, but it sounds like a good number to start with.

This all entirely your lack of faith. Again, these are your stumbling blocks. The reason you don't know God as being perfect, or are unable to see Gods character in the bible as being without flaw, is because your understanding of Him is imperfect. You said it yourself, to you He never even existed. You failed to follow the first order of having a relationship with God, which is faith. Without that, He will remain entirely outside of your understanding.

Written off God, no. Like I said, I hope not to be correct. Worthiness isn't even a question. I don't thing much of me, if you knew anything about me instead of calling me arrogant by implication. The truth is, you sound like a very young Christian. I don't mean that in a bad way, mind you. But the way you speak to me is like that of dogmatic conversation and less than thought provoking. There isn't a single word you have said that I haven't heard from a sermon somewhere, or even, one that I gave myself to others. Did I mention that I have pastored people? Did I mention that I once had a small group ministry that was very successful.

In closing, I think you are conversing AT me rather than WITH me. Or so it seems, from the rather dogmatic reply form this took. While I know as a Christian your answers must be based on some amount of bible, the bible hold very little authority over the way I think now. As such, trying to appeal to me with justifications that ONLY come from the bible, like original sin take a leap of faith, one that I have denounced. You expect me to use circular logic, which I will refuse to do anymore with myself. I did that for years already, I am not going to spend any more time on it.

I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on this. I am resolved to drop the subject, unless you want to have the final word...but I most likely wont reply. I only expect us to chase our tails. With you quoting bible philosophy to me, and me saying that isn't the way it MUST be, I need convencing...and round and round we go. I don't want to say I have heard it all, because I surely haven't, but all the logic you just hit me with is stuff I have thought about, extensively, and yet still am where I am today. I don't make a lot of money, I don't have lots of possessions, but what I DO have is literally thought years of considering my religions positions. I don't take them lightly, and I didn't care for the slight, though understandable, tone change at the end of your statements; like I was just foolishly doing this with no consideration. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am not young, not getting younger, and have and will always be thinking on this subject.

Over and out...must get more beer!

You mzy have felt inclined to return my dismissal of your claims as being in any sense original, but my understanding of Gods truth is not dogmatic. Mostly, what I know about God is from special revelation..scriputre is the expansion and explanation of the revelation of the truth I have already received. Which is not to dismiss its importance..it is primary. It is just that I already understood Gods love before I came to scripture..and that is how I came to know it is the truth...because I see that same love poured out on every page. I am not troubled by a single part of it..though I will admit that some of it is hard to explain to an unbeliever.

Again, I will say that if you understood the bible then you would know faith is primary and wouldn't have dropped it because you hit a brick wall in your own understanding. We have Gods direct guidence through the Holy Spirit, who leads us into all truth, and not one thing we need to know will be held back from us. If you had perservered, the apparent inconsistances would be resolved for you. Since you gave up, you are stuck in the same place and always will be until you repent of your unbelief and lay down your understanding before the Lord. "Not my will, but yours".

God told them not to partake of the fruit or they would die. They knew it was wrong to disobey God and they knew the consequence would be death. They chose instead to believe satan over God, because they lusted after His power instead of trusting Him. They deserved their punishment.

Everyone knows right from wrong because everyone has a God given conscience that knows right from wrong. Murder isn't arbitrarily bad, it's absolutely bad, and everyone knows that. It's the same with stealing or any other sin.

>> ^SDGundamX:
There are two problems with that particular part of your quote. The first is that the God of the Bible seems to deal out unbelievably harsh punishments for the supposed sins that are committed. Oh, you ate a forbidden apple? Well now I'm going to cast you out into a world where you'll have to suffer the pains of hunger, death and childbirth! Nevermind that a snake talked Eve into taking the apple or that Eve tricked Adam into eating it. Nevermind that I never explained what was so bad about eating the fruit. All sins (and let's be clear, by "sin" we are really saying not doing what I told you to do) must be punished! Mercilessly! Regardless of the circumstances!
That isn't love--that's megalomaniac and tyrannic authoritarianism.
The second problem I have with that statement is that it's just such an archaic worldview--that people won't do bad things because they fear the impassive, unyielding punishment they will receive if they are caught. Maybe 4000 years ago, in a world where the strongest grabbed power and arbitrarily made the rules for all the others, that kind of worldview made sense but not anymore. Most people living in a modern society like the U.S. or Japan don't steal. That's not because the law or some deity says we can't--it's because we have enough reasoning abilities to work out how it would feel if someone stole from us, what kind of effect it would have on society if everyone stole from everyone else, and so forth.
Those people who don't figure these things out for themselves and decide to steal do need to learn there are consequences for their actions (by being arrested and sent to jail) but the punishment often has very little effect on changing their future behavior. Why? Because punishment alone is not very effective at changing people's behavior. Instead of learning to not engage in that behavior, people learn how to get better at not getting caught in the first place.
Reasoning with people(something the God of the Bible very rarely seems to do) and rewarding positive behaviors, in addition to holding people accountable for their actions, has been shown to be a great way to get people to change. One of the tragedies of our modern world is that the criminal justice system, much like the Biblical God apparently, is much more concerned with meting out punishment than in actually trying to reform people.
>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not that God wants to punish you, it's that no sin will go unpunished.

@acidSpine

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

He is able..He could program everyone to never do evil, but then they would be robots.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent

He is willing to perfect you so that you don't do evil anymore, but that's entirely your choice.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

From mans disobedience

I wasn't indoctrinated either. I am the only Christian in my family. I became a Christian at a late age after being an agnostic my entire life. I used to think Bill Hicks was wise too..but it turns out everything he said about God was just ignorant, perhaps even deliberately so. He just didn't understand the bible very well.

Dude you weren't brainwashed by anyone? ok you musthave done it to yourself then. Nice try at dismantling Epicurus except you couldn't do it without your first 2 statments contradicing each other, omg i just realised it's way worse, you actually think, what i recognise as the contradiction, is the poinient eternal truth.
Seriously the amount of rubbish a person needs to spout to justify this mundane concept is beyond me

@shinyblurry

You seem to be ignoring the vast bulk of my comment. I pointed out the the Biblical God:

1) Doesn't take the time to reason with people--he arbitrarily decides the rules and the punishments...
2) Doesn't take circumstances into account--you implied with your statement that all sins will be punished that someone who lies to save a life apparently burns in a lake of fire just the same as someone who lies to further their own selfish agenda
3) Hands out punishments that are far worse than the actual "sin" (which in almost every case is not doing what the Biblical God says to do even when the command is--by all moral standards--completely wrong [i.e. the genocide of entire peoples--including children])

I'm curious about how you respond to those three points.

They in no way contridict eachother..epicurus, like you, didn't understand the nature of evil..if you want me to elaborate i will..if you want to say "omg!! ur dumb!!" then we don't really have much to discuss

>> ^acidSpine:
Dude you weren't brainwashed by anyone? ok you musthave done it to yourself then. Nice try at dismantling Epicurus except you couldn't do it without your first 2 statments contradicing each other, omg i just realised it's way worse, you actually think, what i recognise as the contradiction, is the poinient eternal truth.
Seriously the amount of rubbish a person needs to spout to justify this mundane concept is beyond me

1 It's not a democracy..God is sovereign. He didn't need to consult anyone when He created the Universe; he certainly doesn't need our help in running it. On the contrary, any chance we've been given we have screwed it up. It would be like asking a violent mental patient if he wants to wear a straight jacket or not.

2 You don't know the power of God..you just assume from your point of view that someone got an unfair shake because you don't see how God is working in anyones life..you can't even see how He is working in your own life. It's not a gotchya game..He gives everyone the chance to repent and turn from their sins. If they won't, neither do they want eternal life with God nor do they deserve it.

3 One sin caused creation to fall and brought death into the world..so you might need to re-evaluate what you consider bad. Again, everyone has a chance to repent..if they don't want to, He doesn't hide the consequences from them. It's a persons choice that sends them to hell. For instance, you know full well that if you don't obey God that's where you're going..you're just fine with that, you are willing to risk it. So why should you be surprised or indignant when it happens?

>> ^SDGundamX:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
You seem to be ignoring the vast bulk of my comment. I pointed out the the Biblical God:
1) Doesn't take the time to reason with people--he arbitrarily decides the rules and the punishments...
2) Doesn't take circumstances into account--you implied with your statement that all sins will be punished that someone who lies to save a life apparently burns in a lake of fire just the same as someone who lies to further their own selfish agenda
3) Hands out punishments that are far worse than the actual "sin" (which in almost every case is not doing what the Biblical God says to do even when the command is--by all moral standards--completely wrong [i.e. the genocide of entire peoples--including children])
I'm curious about how you respond to those three points.

No I'm good thanks, any more elaboration would be quite pointless it seems. According to yourself the reason this sounds like nonsense to me is I haven't made the assumption that god is perfect and everything he does is good.

"This all entirely your lack of faith. Again, these are your stumbling blocks. The reason you don't know God as being perfect, or are unable to see Gods character in the bible as being without flaw, is because your understanding of Him is imperfect. You said it yourself, to you He never even existed. You failed to follow the first order of having a relationship with God, which is faith. Without that, He will remain entirely outside of your understanding. "

See what you've done is admitted it won't make sense until the listener makes himself believe it unquestioningly. That's not a very persuasive argument.
>> ^shinyblurry:

They in no way contridict eachother..epicurus, like you, didn't understand the nature of evil..if you want me to elaborate i will..if you want to say "omg!! ur dumb!!" then we don't really have much to discuss
>> ^acidSpine:
Dude you weren't brainwashed by anyone? ok you musthave done it to yourself then. Nice try at dismantling Epicurus except you couldn't do it without your first 2 statments contradicing each other, omg i just realised it's way worse, you actually think, what i recognise as the contradiction, is the poinient eternal truth.
Seriously the amount of rubbish a person needs to spout to justify this mundane concept is beyond me

@shinyblurry

I understand you point of view. Thank you very much for addressing the points as I asked. I can see you have spent a great deal of time formulating your own internal theology. I sincerely hope this theology allows you to live not only a more fulfilling life, but one that brings peace and happiness to all others you encounter (whether they believe the same as you or not).

For my own part, I must admit I have to reject any theology that:

1) Claims I am a slave and must do as I am told (regardless of how ridiculous or immoral it may be) or face punishment--especially a theology that claims such slavery is in my best interest
2) Claims that punishment (or the constant threat and fear of punishment) is the only way to reform people
3) Claims that justice ensues when all [completely arbitrarily chosen] wrongs are punished without fail, without mercy, and without regard to circumstances

I would like to make one friendly suggestion, if I might. The tone of your posts tend to be quite condescending, as if somehow you are privileged to knowledge or intellect that is quite beyond the rest of us . Perhaps you don't intend your posts to sound that way, but I haven't been the only Sifter to notice that is exactly how they come across. If your goal in posting here is to get people to actually listen to your message, then I suggest you try to phrase your posts in a way so as to engage with the rest of us as equals, rather than talk down to us. For my own part, I am able to ignore the condescension and focus on your actual message, but I think you'll find a great many Sifters who will not be so generous.

My theology is Christian, I didn't just come up with it myself. It's all in the bible and most of what I am saying is widely agreed upon by Christian theologians. I appreciate your well wishing and back handed compliments..but if you want to talk about condescension you might want to examine your own post.

1) It's not a matter of choice; without God you are still a slave. You may feel free because you don't feel accountable to God, and you're being encouraged by the devil, but I assure you you are a slave to your own sin. You are under spiritual dominion by the wicked powers of this world, and it will remain so until you turn to the one who heals you. What you call freedom I call bondage.

2) The way that people are reformed is by turning from their own wicked behavior. Anyone who refuses to do so deserves their punishment.

3) Again, since you refuse to turn from your sins don't be surprised when you're judged for them.

No christians are well liked here except the ones who shut their mouths. I'm the only one with the courage to talk about the Lord, and I have had some success..moreover I'm not here to earn your praise. This is a naturally hostile environment to God, and as such civilitiy has been rare..if you think that's entirely on my side I have hundreds of quotes to show you. If you sense condescension, I apologize.


>> ^SDGundamX:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
I understand you point of view. Thank you very much for addressing the points as I asked. I can see you have spent a great deal of time formulating your own internal theology. I sincerely hope this theology allows you to live not only a more fulfilling life, but one that brings peace and happiness to all others you encounter (whether they believe the same as you or not).
For my own part, I must admit I have to reject any theology that:
1) Claims I am a slave and must do as I am told (regardless of how ridiculous or immoral it may be) or face punishment--especially a theology that claims such slavery is in my best interest
2) Claims that punishment (or the constant threat and fear of punishment) is the only way to reform people
3) Claims that justice ensues when all [completely arbitrarily chosen] wrongs are punished without fail, without mercy, and without regard to circumstances
I would like to make one friendly suggestion, if I might. The tone of your posts tend to be quite condescending, as if somehow you are privileged to knowledge or intellect that is quite beyond the rest of us . Perhaps you don't intend your posts to sound that way, but I haven't been the only Sifter to notice that is exactly how they come across. If your goal in posting here is to get people to actually listen to your message, then I suggest you try to phrase your posts in a way so as to engage with the rest of us as equals, rather than talk down to us. For my own part, I am able to ignore the condescension and focus on your actual message, but I think you'll find a great many Sifters who will not be so generous.

>>^shinyblurry:

He is able..He could program everyone to never do evil, but then they would be robots.



Shiny, by your argument, he programmed us anyway.

That's why this "free will" topic always amazes me. God knew exactly what you were going to do when he made you, because he's omniscient. Therefore, everything you do, everything, is God's decision, not yours. If God is omniscient, it cannot be argued that you have free will.

Point being: If God programmed you to do evil instead of not do evil, it doesn't make you any less of a robot. But somehow, by your argument, you're not?

@shinyblurry

I've re-read my post. I can find absolutely no condescension in it. I honestly hope you live a better life because of your beliefs and that those beliefs inspire you to help people in meaningful ways.

My theology is Christian, I didn't just come up with it myself.

I have attended all sorts of churches--Catholic, Protestant, Russian Orthodox, Mormon, Armenian, Unitarian and so forth. The theology you have described here is quite clearly different from what those churches preach. Also, did you not claim in a previous post that much of what your understanding of Christianity has come through revelation from God? That would seem to clearly contradict your own statement above.

I have read many of your comments and am genuinely concerned that you don't realize the tone you are taking. You don't seem to be trying to engaging with other people as fellow human beings. Basically, you're talking at them, not to them. I offered you advice in the hope that you could craft your message in a way such that people would actually stop long enough to listen to what you have to say and not miss it entirely because they were too focused on how you phrased it. If it's any consolation, I've given the exact same advice I gave to you to self-proclaimed militant atheists on the Sift who seem to revel in mocking those with religious beliefs, as if their atheism somehow made them better people.

I suspect, though, you have not come here to listen to what other people have to say... you've come here to preach. You are welcome to do so. But you really shouldn't be too surprised if people choose to ignore you. After all, you are for all practical purposes ignoring them as well.

Good luck with the proselytizing (I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically).

Peace.

Everything I believe is in the bible, there is nothing extra beyond that. I appreciate your warning. I will take it into consideration. It is possible I developed an attitude problem from my interactions here. I tend to respond to the prevailing social dynamic, which in this case is blatant hostility. It's not as if I don't see what's going on, and some things need to be said regardless of perceived appropriateness. However, I will endevour to be more congenial..thank you for your magnanamousness.

>> ^SDGundamX:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
I've re-read my post. I can find absolutely no condescension in it. I honestly hope you live a better life because of your beliefs and that those beliefs inspire you to help people in meaningful ways.
My theology is Christian, I didn't just come up with it myself.
I have attended all sorts of churches--Catholic, Protestant, Russian Orthodox, Mormon, Armenian, Unitarian and so forth. The theology you have described here is quite clearly different from what those churches preach. Also, did you not claim in a previous post that much of what your understanding of Christianity has come through revelation from God? That would seem to clearly contradict your own statement above.
I have read many of your comments and am genuinely concerned that you don't realize the tone you are taking. You don't seem to be trying to engaging with other people as fellow human beings. Basically, you're talking at them, not to them. I offered you advice in the hope that you could craft your message in a way such that people would actually stop long enough to listen to what you have to say and not miss it entirely because they were too focused on how you phrased it. If it's any consolation, I've given the exact same advice I gave to you to self-proclaimed militant atheists on the Sift who seem to revel in mocking those with religious beliefs, as if their atheism somehow made them better people.
I suspect, though, you have not come here to listen to what other people have to say... you've come here to preach. You are welcome to do so. But you really shouldn't be too surprised if people choose to ignore you. After all, you are for all practical purposes ignoring them as well.
Good luck with the proselytizing (I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically).
Peace.

@shinyblurry

Last post, I promise.

It is true, there are people who are incredibly hostile to religion the Sift, but they aren't the majority (though they can be the most vocal). Most of us are indifferent.

It's also true that religious believers are an underrepresented portion of the Sift right now. You seem to have had some negative experiences with the Sift, and I would hate for you to go away.

HOWEVER, I think you are actually causing some of your own frustration. There is nothing inappropriate about the content of your posts. You want to talk about the Bible and Jesus? More power to you! But the way you deliver your message is as important as what you actually say.

Just to use a simple (but extreme) example:

"Hey Fucktard, try talking with us and not at us!"

versus

"Sometimes your posts have a condescending tone that makes it hard to take what you say seriously."

The point of both messages is the same. But clearly one of those is likely to be dismissed as an angry rant whereas the other might (no guarantees, of course) convince someone to rethink how they are phrasing their messages. If you're serious about getting your message across and not just ranting, clearly one is a better choice than the other.

That's all I've been trying to say, though you seem determined to misunderstand my intentions in every post.

Happy Sifting.

? Did you not see my last post where I agreed that perhaps you were right and I would consider it? I don't understand why you're still belaboring the point and saying I am misunderstanding you. I'll say it again..I appreciate your well intentioned advice, and I will take it under consideration..

>> ^SDGundamX:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since January 21st, 2011" href="http://videosift.com/member/shinyblurry">shinyblurry
Last post, I promise.
It is true, there are people who are incredibly hostile to religion the Sift, but they aren't the majority (though they can be the most vocal). Most of us are indifferent.
It's also true that religious believers are an underrepresented portion of the Sift right now. You seem to have had some negative experiences with the Sift, and I would hate for you to go away.
HOWEVER, I think you are actually causing some of your own frustration. There is nothing inappropriate about the content of your posts. You want to talk about the Bible and Jesus? More power to you! But the way you deliver your message is as important as what you actually say.
Just to use a simple (but extreme) example:
"Hey Fucktard, try talking with us and not at us!"
versus
"Sometimes your posts have a condescending tone that makes it hard to take what you say seriously."
The point of both messages is the same. But clearly one of those is likely to be dismissed as an angry rant whereas the other might (no guarantees, of course) convince someone to rethink how they are phrasing their messages. If you're serious about getting your message across and not just ranting, clearly one is a better choice than the other.
That's all I've been trying to say, though you seem determined to misunderstand my intentions in every post.
Happy Sifting.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Dan-Savage-What-would-you-say-to-LGBT-affirming-Christians

bareboards2 cannot declared this a dupe of the specified video because bareboards2 submitted the original - ignoring dupeof request by bareboards2.

1 more comment have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Replaced video embed code with backup #5269 (supplied by member bareboards2) - embed replaced by member bareboards2.