I think I just discovered a new hotel hobby.

Professor Tolkien would not approve. Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle, and well he should be, but to boast about defacing the bible on television takes it to a whole other level of criminality and rebellion. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.

haha that's awesome

>> ^shinyblurry:

Professor Tolkien would not approve. Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle, and well he should be, but to boast about defacing the bible on television takes it to a whole other level of criminality and rebellion. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.


What an incredibly bigoted, judgmental and hateful statement.

Blessed are the cheesemakers.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Professor Tolkien would not approve. Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle, and well he should be, but to boast about defacing the bible on television takes it to a whole other level of criminality and rebellion. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.

"gods judgement?" You mean mans judgement. It is clear beyond doubt that the bible was man made and the "morals" contained in it have, for the most part, been disgarded as bronze age fear mongering and control. However, if you still believe in stoning for adultery, working on the sabbath, females not being virgins on their wedding night, cursing your parents, "honour" killings, etc, etc, etc, then go live in a country that still practices such barbarity. This is 2012CE not 12CE, and the morals we adhere to now are the product of concensus, debate and intellectual discourse. Of course they will change as we change, it's called evolving, you might enjoy giving it a try.

It's interesting that he places his coming out as a point of personal growth.

My experience with people of the various queer sexualities has been that they really do tend to be more mature and confident than the norm. Perhaps reconciling oneself to sexual non-conformity requires something we should all be doing anyway, which is close and ongoing self-examination.

Its not criminal in any way shape or form. The bibles are placed in the hotels by charities such as the Gideons and they are FREE TO TAKE WITH YOU. This is why they are there. As such they are free to desecrate and leave behind.

>> ^CrushBug:

I think I just discovered a new hotel hobby.


Seconded... Then again, why stop at Leviticus?

>> ^MilkmanDan:

>> ^CrushBug:
I think I just discovered a new hotel hobby.

Seconded... Then again, why stop at Leviticus?


Because taxi drivers all over New Zealand will be mad as bro?

>> ^MilkmanDan:

>> ^CrushBug:
I think I just discovered a new hotel hobby.

Seconded... Then again, why stop at Leviticus?


the bible is excellent as a fire starter or as toilet paper in a pinch. or if you need something to waive at people while you judge them.
if no bible, see if you can find L. Ron Hubbards Dianetics
Or John Smiths Book of Mormon
or Mohammed's Koran
or some other piece of ignorant lunacy written by fools

Oh no, the boogie man is going to get him.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Professor Tolkien would not approve. Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle, and well he should be, but to boast about defacing the bible on television takes it to a whole other level of criminality and rebellion. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^MilkmanDan:
>> ^CrushBug:
I think I just discovered a new hotel hobby.

Seconded... Then again, why stop at Leviticus?

the bible is excellent as a fire starter or as toilet paper in a pinch. or if you need something to waive at people while you judge them.
if no bible, see if you can find L. Ron Hubbards Dianetics
Or John Smiths Book of Mormon
or Mohammed's Koran
or some other piece of ignorant lunacy written by fools


Joseph Smith. Not that I care.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^criticalthud:
>> ^MilkmanDan:
>> ^CrushBug:
I think I just discovered a new hotel hobby.

Seconded... Then again, why stop at Leviticus?

the bible is excellent as a fire starter or as toilet paper in a pinch. or if you need something to waive at people while you judge them.
if no bible, see if you can find L. Ron Hubbards Dianetics
Or John Smiths Book of Mormon
or Mohammed's Koran
or some other piece of ignorant lunacy written by fools

Joseph Smith. (dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb) Not that I care.


fixed for you

>> ^shinyblurry:

Professor Tolkien would not approve. Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle, and well he should be, but to boast about defacing the bible on television takes it to a whole other level of criminality and rebellion. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.


lol

>> ^shinyblurry:
[show the body of this ignored comment]


Spam.

I love you Ian.

TOTALLY puts a different spin on that whole Prof X / Magneto dynamic...

I would just remove the whole old testament. Just so everybody knows if they want to do the whole, "...we only use the New Testament now!", we can make sure they're not lying--which I think they usual are (...*coughs* creationism *coughs*...).

To be honestly blunt.

/Good show Sir Ian; it truly bugs me for some reason that they feel compelled to put THAT in all the rooms. Not only does it cheapen it (which is fine and everything), but it's a mockery to everyone that doesn't follow it--which is a large amount of the world's population.
//I know they still use some of the OT, but it's fun to pull strings sometimes

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^shinyblurry:
Professor Tolkien would not approve. Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle, and well he should be, but to boast about defacing the bible on television takes it to a whole other level of criminality and rebellion. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.

"gods judgement?" You mean mans judgement. It is clear beyond doubt that the bible was man made and the "morals" contained in it have, for the most part, been disgarded as bronze age fear mongering and control. However, if you still believe in stoning for adultery, working on the sabbath, females not being virgins on their wedding night, cursing your parents, "honour" killings, etc, etc, etc, then go live in a country that still practices such barbarity. This is 2012CE not 12CE, and the morals we adhere to now are the product of concensus, debate and intellectual discourse. Of course they will change as we change, it's called evolving, you might enjoy giving it a try.


Also, ironically, it is true that Tolkien & Lewis were indeed great friends as well as Christians; however, Tolkien used to give his friend quite a bit of crap about Lewis incorporating so many ideas/stories from the Bible into his own fantasy writings.

Tolkien hated allegory.

Edit: Err, I should say he had an emphatic dislike for it, as far as his own writing was concerned.

Pwned by intellect.>> ^A10anis:

>> ^shinyblurry:
Professor Tolkien would not approve. Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle, and well he should be, but to boast about defacing the bible on television takes it to a whole other level of criminality and rebellion. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.

"gods judgement?" You mean mans judgement. It is clear beyond doubt that the bible was man made and the "morals" contained in it have, for the most part, been disgarded as bronze age fear mongering and control. However, if you still believe in stoning for adultery, working on the sabbath, females not being virgins on their wedding night, cursing your parents, "honour" killings, etc, etc, etc, then go live in a country that still practices such barbarity. This is 2012CE not 12CE, and the morals we adhere to now are the product of concensus, debate and intellectual discourse. Of course they will change as we change, it's called evolving, you might enjoy giving it a try.

>"gods judgement?" You mean mans judgement.

No, I mean Gods judgement. Mans judgement is relative, Gods judgement is absolute.

It is clear beyond doubt that the bible was man made and the "morals" contained in it have, for the most part, been disgarded as bronze age fear mongering and control.

You have discarded them because you're suppressing the truth. God even proved to you that you have a soul and you pretend it was a mental artifact so you don't have to deal with reality.

However, if you still believe in stoning for adultery, working on the sabbath, females not being virgins on their wedding night, cursing your parents, "honour" killings, etc, etc, etc, then go live in a country that still practices such barbarity.

If you're going to criticize the bible then take the time to understand it. Go learn the difference between the levitical and melchizedek priesthood and then get back to me.

This is 2012CE not 12CE, and the morals we adhere to now are the product of concensus, debate and intellectual discourse.

What is good and evil do not change, and if you believe they could change, it means that anything that you consider evil could potentially become good. However, we all know some things are absolutely wrong and always will be, because everyone has a God given conscience which tells them that.

Of course they will change as we change, it's called evolving, you might enjoy giving it a try.

There is nothing new under the sun. Man is as unspiritual and worldly as he ever has been.


>> ^A10anis:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Professor Tolkien would not approve. Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle, and well he should be, but to boast about defacing the bible on television takes it to a whole other level of criminality and rebellion. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.

"gods judgement?" You mean mans judgement. It is clear beyond doubt that the bible was man made and the "morals" contained in it have, for the most part, been disgarded as bronze age fear mongering and control. However, if you still believe in stoning for adultery, working on the sabbath, females not being virgins on their wedding night, cursing your parents, "honour" killings, etc, etc, etc, then go live in a country that still practices such barbarity. This is 2012CE not 12CE, and the morals we adhere to now are the product of concensus, debate and intellectual discourse. Of course they will change as we change, it's called evolving, you might enjoy giving it a try.

So defacing or destroying books is a good thing?

>> ^kceaton1:
I would just remove the whole old testament. Just so everybody knows if they want to do the whole, "...we only use the New Testament now!", we can make sure they're not lying--which I think they usual are (... coughs creationism coughs ...).
To be honestly blunt.
/Good show Sir Ian; it truly bugs me for some reason that they feel compelled to put THAT in all the rooms. Not only does it cheapen it (which is fine and everything), but it's a mockery to everyone that doesn't follow it--which is a large amount of the world's population.
//I know they still use some of the OT, but it's fun to pull strings sometimes

I liked Ian as Gandalf, although I thought the books were a bit better than the movies, however, I dont like that Ian is encouraging thousands (millions?) of people to deface the bible, a criminal act when it is other peoples property btw, and which is completely irresponsible and immature, not to mention ridiculous. What's going on is that Ian doesn't like that look in the mirror, so he tries to shatter the reflection.

>> ^holymackerel013:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Professor Tolkien would not approve. Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle, and well he should be, but to boast about defacing the bible on television takes it to a whole other level of criminality and rebellion. All I have to say is that you reap what you sow.

What?....Gandalf is...GAY!? OH NO...why did nobody ever tell me! I guess I'm not allowed to watch my favourite movies & I've been so excited about the upcoming Hobbit movies. Why God? Why does he have to be gay?

>> ^shinyblurry:

I liked Ian as Gandalf, although I thought the books were a bit better than the movies, however, I dont like that Ian is encouraging thousands (millions?) of people to deface the bible, a criminal act when it is other peoples property btw, and which is completely irresponsible and immature, not to mention ridiculous. What's going on is that Ian doesn't like that look in the mirror, so he tries to shatter the reflection.

Ian McKellen - encouraging people to tear a page out of the bible.
The Bible - encouraging people to KILL IAN MCKELLEN.

Not so. Psychopathy is a condition where a person is born without a conscience, that's to say, has no concept of what's morally right and wrong except from what others have told them and what they have observed others to believe. They only know what's good for them and what's not. And it's a relatively common condition in the face of bold sweeping statements like yours.>> ^shinyblurry:

However, we all know some things are absolutely wrong and always will be, because everyone has a God given conscience which tells them that.

Christians are under a New Covenant and don't follow those laws. They were made for a time and place in history. There is no excuse defacing the bible, or encouraging others to do so.

>> ^gorillaman:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I liked Ian as Gandalf, although I thought the books were a bit better than the movies, however, I dont like that Ian is encouraging thousands (millions?) of people to deface the bible, a criminal act when it is other peoples property btw, and which is completely irresponsible and immature, not to mention ridiculous. What's going on is that Ian doesn't like that look in the mirror, so he tries to shatter the reflection.
Ian McKellen - encouraging people to tear a page out of the bible.
The Bible - encouraging people to KILL IAN MCKELLEN.

And some people are born without sight so they can't look at anything with lust. To each as they can receive the message. I'll modify my comment and say "in general", but in specific, God lets us know one way or another.

>> ^messenger:
Not so. Psychopathy is a condition where a person is born without a conscience, that's to say, has no concept of what's morally right and wrong except from what others have told them and what they have observed others to believe. They only know what's good for them and what's not. And it's a relatively common condition in the face of bold sweeping statements like yours.>> ^shinyblurry:
However, we all know some things are absolutely wrong and always will be, because everyone has a God given conscience which tells them that.

@shinyblurry

Subjective perception of moral values by humans is the basis of your ontological argument here, which rests on the premise that everyone can subjectively perceive moral values. We've just learned that not everyone can do so: an estimated 700,000,000 people around the world cannot perceive moral values subjectively. Do you still maintain that we can all directly perceive moral values?

A related theological argument goes that God made moral values and then gave us free will to choose to follow them or not "because robots would be undesirable", according to you in that same dialogue. "Unfortunately", we break those rules all the time. Now, he can put any barrier in our way, and make life as difficult as possible, and this will be a test of our desire to follow our God-given conscience. But he didn't give everyone a conscience. It's nothing like depriving someone of one sense. It's like depriving someone of all senses so they can't understand what is expected of us morally, nor even that anything is expected. It's like expecting a robot to know right from wrong without telling it that these two categories even exist. What's the point of having free will if you don't have a conscience? Did God want some people not to perceive him, and to wander around being the worst people on the planet to everyone else? Was this "desirable?"

10 percent of the worlds population are psychopaths? Have any evidence for this claim? In any case, you're wrong. Even psychopaths know good from evil:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Lack_of_empathy

"Psychopaths have a total lack of remorse for the abuses they commit. They generally know the difference between right and wrong, but they do not care. Even when they are aware of the consequences of their actions, they frequently rationalize their behavior so as to minimize the seriousness or shrug off responsibility. They often blame their victims for their own crimes; "he shouldn't have provoked me" and "suckers deserve to be swindled" are common sayings."

Everyone is born with their special challenges. Psychopaths struggle with adhering to moral standards, but this isn't because they aren't aware that they exist. They know what they're doing is wrong but they do it anyway. A person can become like this for a lot of reasons. We live in a fallen world and this manifests in genetic defects, mental defects, and yes, even defects in following our conscience. I have the opinion that many of these defects are self-created. In any case, God can still present those so afflicted with real choices, and the opportunity to receive salvation.

>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
Subjective perception of moral values by humans is the basis of your ontological argument here, which rests on the premise that everyone can subjectively perceive moral values. We've just learned that not everyone can do so: an estimated 700,000,000 people around the world cannot perceive moral values subjectively. Do you still maintain that we can all directly perceive moral values?
A related theological argument goes that God made moral values and then gave us free will to choose to follow them or not "because robots would be undesirable", according to you in that same dialogue. "Unfortunately", we break those rules all the time. Now, he can put any barrier in our way, and make life as difficult as possible, and this will be a test of our desire to follow our God-given conscience. But he didn't give everyone a conscience. It's nothing like depriving someone of one sense. It's like depriving someone of all senses so they can't understand what is expected of us morally, nor even that anything is expected. It's like expecting a robot to know right from wrong without telling it that these two categories even exist. What's the point of having free will if you don't have a conscience? Did God want some people not to perceive him, and to wander around being the worst people on the planet to everyone else? Was this "desirable?"

My mistake about the numbers. It's 1%, or 70,000,000 people (every website I went to had the same number, so I'm sure you can find it yourself).

There's no context and no references there, but to me it means psychopaths are aware society holds there to be a difference between right actions and and wrong actions, not that they themselves feel it's wrong, as evidenced by the lack of empathy, which is how the rest of us perceive moral values. That's just because I've done some casual reading about psychopathy in the past, not because I remember that statement clearly. If Hare or someone like that ever clearly stated that psychopaths are innately aware of what's right and wrong, then I'll drop my point. But I don't see how someone could feel something is wrong if they are unable to empathetically perceive how it hurts someone else.>> ^shinyblurry:

10 percent of the worlds population are psychopaths? Have any evidence for this claim? In any case, you're wrong. Even psychopaths know good from evil:
"Psychopaths have a total lack of remorse for the abuses they commit. They generally know the difference between right and wrong, but they do not care."

God made the entire universe and everything that has ever had any influence on it. Anyway, God made us, and as he's omniscient, eternal and omni-present in all times. Agreed? Then ultimately it's God's fault it's a "fallen" world (I don't know what that means, but it sounds like a bad thing). It's God's fault we have any defects at all. He knew exactly what would happen, yet he did it anyway. You might argue that Satan made these defects, but God made Satan, so it's still God's fault. You may argue God didn't make Satan, then who did? Is there another God? Is Satan a god? Is Satan also omni-everything like God, except for not all-loving? Does God not have omni-power over Satan? Why not? Isn't god ALL-powerful? If words have meaning, the story doesn't add up.

If these defects are "self-created", as you say, God's the one who made the "self" that introduced these new defects, so it's still God's fault for creating selves that can't seem to stop creating further defects in themselves. And then, after purposefully creating all these defects in us, he grants us the opportunity to go against our God-induced defective natures to receive salvation from a fallen state that he intentionally created -- remember, he knows everything. He's either really sick in the head, or he's capable of failure, or he's not all-powerful. Words have meaning.>> ^shinyblurry:
We live in a fallen world and this manifests in genetic defects, mental defects, and yes, even defects in following our conscience. I have the opinion that many of these defects are self-created. In any case, God can still present those so afflicted with real choices, and the opportunity to receive salvation.

God made the entire universe and everything that has ever had any influence on it. Anyway, God made us, and as he's omniscient, eternal and omni-present in all times. Agreed? Then ultimately it's God's fault it's a "fallen" world (I don't know what that means, but it sounds like a bad thing). It's God's fault we have any defects at all. He knew exactly what would happen, yet he did it anyway.

This world was originally without any death, or suffering. When Adam and Eve sinned, death entered the world with it, and that is the reason it is fallen. They made that choice out of free will. God could have forced their obedience, or could have simply never given them a choice, but you can't have a loving relationship with robots who can't choose not to love you.

You might argue that Satan made these defects, but God made Satan, so it's still God's fault. You may argue God didn't make Satan, then who did? Is there another God? Is Satan a god? Is Satan also omni-everything like God, except for not all-loving? Does God not have omni-power over Satan? Why not? Isn't god ALL-powerful? If words have meaning, the story doesn't add up.

Satan is a created being. He isn't omni-anything. He tempted Adam and Eve to sin, but it isn't his fault persay. He didn't force them to sin.

If these defects are "self-created", as you say, God's the one who made the "self" that introduced these new defects, so it's still God's fault for creating selves that can't seem to stop creating further defects in themselves. And then, after purposefully creating all these defects in us, he grants us the opportunity to go against our God-induced defective natures to receive salvation from a fallen state that he intentionally created -- remember, he knows everything. He's either really sick in the head, or he's capable of failure, or he's not all-powerful. Words have meaning.

Or He created them as free moral agents who are capable of defying His will, and they freely chose to defy His will and wreck His creation, even over His direct warnings. He sent Jesus Christ to fix the problem of sin, which He did on the cross 2000 years ago. God has adjudicated the entire matter through His Son, and anyone who wishes to obtain forgiveness for sin and avoid punishment, as well as receieve eternal life, can do so through Him. Whoever wants to reject their pardon and ignore Gods warnings and take their chances will face Gods judgement at the end of the world.

>> ^messenger:
God made the entire universe and everything that has ever had any influence on it. Anyway, God made us, and as he's omniscient, eternal and omni-present in all times. Agreed? Then ultimately it's God's fault it's a "fallen" world (I don't know what that means, but it sounds like a bad thing). It's God's fault we have any defects at all. He knew exactly what would happen, yet he did it anyway. You might argue that Satan made these defects, but God made Satan, so it's still God's fault. You may argue God didn't make Satan, then who did? Is there another God? Is Satan a god? Is Satan also omni-everything like God, except for not all-loving? Does God not have omni-power over Satan? Why not? Isn't god ALL-powerful? If words have meaning, the story doesn't add up.
If these defects are "self-created", as you say, God's the one who made the "self" that introduced these new defects, so it's still God's fault for creating selves that can't seem to stop creating further defects in themselves. And then, after purposefully creating all these defects in us, he grants us the opportunity to go against our God-induced defective natures to receive salvation from a fallen state that he intentionally created -- remember, he knows everything. He's either really sick in the head, or he's capable of failure, or he's not all-powerful. Words have meaning.>> ^shinyblurry:
We live in a fallen world and this manifests in genetic defects, mental defects, and yes, even defects in following our conscience. I have the opinion that many of these defects are self-created. In any case, God can still present those so afflicted with real choices, and the opportunity to receive salvation.

@shinyblurry

First you say, "Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle".

Then you say, "Christians are under a New Covenant and don't follow those laws".

Which is it? Is being gay against the bible, or is it not against the bible?

@shinyblurry

A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.

Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.

It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything.

So, can you explain how God can be perfect, yet be unfulfilled and have desires?

To quote Hawkeye Pierce:

"Never argue with crazy people and always keep a clean pair of underwear in the glove box in case you get in a car accident and need to be taken to the hospital."

A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.

It's impossible for us to say how God perceives His Creation (beyond what He told us). What we do know is that the second person of the Trinity entered time and became a man, and lived 33 years here on Earth. The Father was certainly capable of loving His Son while He was a man, and interacting with Him in this temporal reality. Therefore God is certainly capable of having meaningful relationships with His creatures as well. It says that in Him we live and move and have our being, meaning, that we are intimately connected to God at all times. I would further say that we have no actual idea of what time is, or how it relates to eternal things. What we do know is that it is always 'now'. I have a feeling that the 'now' moment and eternity relate in some way.

Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.

God had perfect love before He Created anything, so He did not create from a lack; He created it out of the abundence of His love.

It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything

His immutability relates to His essential nature, His perfect goodness. His character doesn't change. He is Holy and Just and always will be. This doesn't mean that God cannot have a novel thought or feel anything. Jesus wept, for instance. If you took this bizzare idea of immutability to its logical conclusion, God would be frozen in place and could not do anything at all. Clearly an omnipotent being is essentially unrestricted in His actions. The problem here is we are limited temporal beings trying to imagine what an unlimited eternal being is like. The distance between us and God is far greater than the distance between us and bacteria. This isn't to pass it off as "God is mysterious", because as I've pointed out, your definitions are inconsistant with what we do know. But you have to admit that there is an essential barrier to understanding what it is like to be God, simply because of our finite and subjective nature. How does a being who was born understand eternity? He can't, at least, not without an eternal being explaining it to him.

First you say, "Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle".

Then you say, "Christians are under a New Covenant and don't follow those laws".

Which is it? Is being gay against the bible, or is it not against the bible?

It was not just a prohibition for israel, it is also for Christians, as detailed in Romans 1:18-32


>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.
Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.
It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything.
So, can you explain how God can be perfect, yet be unfulfilled and have desires?

@shinyblurry

Words have meaning.

You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.

There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.

About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.

How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't.

You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.

There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.

I am applying immutability to His essential nature, I am not saying God never changes. To say God cannot change is to say that God cannot do anything or be anything. The thought that total changelessness is a prerequisite of perfection is a platonian ideal, not a Christian one. How can perfection be actualized if it is not manifest? Who God is is what always stays the same. He is perfectly good. What God does can change. He manifests that good in many different ways.

About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.

His first covenant was exclusively with the Israelities to create the conditions for the coming of the Messiah. The second covenant was established for the entire world. It takes a student of the bible to understand that the entire OT is about Jesus Christ. Everything that is going on there is preparing the way for the Messiah, and is a picture of His coming. For instance, the story of Abraham and Issac is a picture of the sacrifice the Father made. Consider this video:



Not only a picture, but containing numerous prophecies. When Jesus said "My God My God why have you forsaken Me?".. He wasn't crying out to the Father because He felt abandoned, He was quoting Psalm 22, to let everyone there know He was fulfilling it. If you read it take note that when it was written (600 years before Christ) that crucifixion hadn't been invented yet.

Regarding the Old Testament, you should consider the other side of the coin. You may consider the actions of God the Father harsh, but then you should also consider the actions of the people He was dealing with. Consider the fact that after He brought the jews out of egypt, delivering them from hundreds of years of slavery, and doing non stop miracles in front of them, even personally leading them through the desert, that as soon as Moses disappeared for a few days, they all descended into barbarism and paganism and made golden calfs to worship saying "this is the God that brought us out of Egypt". Even after all that God had done for them, they were ready to betray Him at the drop of a hat. This is why God dealt harshly with them, because it was the only thing they understood, and that even just barely. The people whom you claim genocide (which wasn't genocide, btw..they drove them out, they didn't exterminate them) were given 400 years to repent, and the reason they were being judged because they were so corrupt that they ritually sacrificed their children to demons. We know from history that people who did this kind of thing also engaged in things like cannibalism. They weren't nice people, and even then God gave them 400 years to change.

How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't

Foreknowledge doesn't rule out an emotional response when it happens. It's not easy to watch your children betraying you I am sure.

I'm glad to hear you like Jesus. And He loves you. The thing to understand is that Jesus is the Fathers heart; they are one. You have a negative impression of the Father because you disagree with how He dealt with the israelities, but you should see the other side of it and understand what He did for us through His Son. Christs very words came from Him:

John 12:50

I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

John 8:28

So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

John 5:19

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

Christ did not come of His own accord, He came because the Father sent Him. He died on the cross to give us forgiveness for sins and eternal life, which was the Fathers plan all along. God doesn't want to destroy us, He wants to save us, and He was even willing to give His only Son to do it. So if you can understand the OT in that light, maybe you can understand God the Father a little better.

As far as not being active today, God is always working all the time. I see it clearly, but it takes spiritual discernment to notice it. You need the Holy Spirit for that. God is really hiding in plain sight.

>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
Words have meaning.
You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.
There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.
About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.
How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't.