*Promote the paramecium

Ok, Matt ... you determined that scripture and theology did not sufficiently answer the questions you were asking. Is there another set of beliefs which does? What is the source of any knowledge that you have? Have you yourself tracked a quantum particle/wave. Or have you even watched a paramecium under a microscope and wondered why it "swims".

If you can't devise a belief structure which accounts for the observed behavior of the universe, then you are ultimately bound by descriptions given by others. And if you cannot refute their given explanation based on observable phenomena, you have only wishful thinking to support your beliefs.

@shinyblurry

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve … to maintain order in His kingdom.

I can't tell if you're disagreeing or off topic. I'll state again what I think I have heard you say or suggest: God gave us humans free will. He loves us, and knew what would be the best way for us to live, so, out of love, he gave us a set of laws to follow for our own good. In order to encourage us to follow those laws, he established hell as punishment for choosing to violate those laws: the worst possible eternal torture.

Have I made any mistakes in there?

[me:]What’s wrong with robots? You said elsewhere it’s because god wouldn’t want robots. How can he want anything? He’s perfect. Does his own existence not satisfy him? Is he lacking something? Was he bored and lonely? Are we his pets?

[you:]God created not out of need, but out of the abundance of His love.

I said and I meant "want" (not "need"). You've said many times that God wanted/desired us to exist and behave in certain ways, and you used words like "(un)satisfactory" to describe God's opinion of us/robots, and so forth. Any understanding of those words necessarily implies a lack of something. You cannot want/desire/be unsatisfied unless that thing addresses your lack of something that would make you better off in some way. Every single human action can be attributed to a lack or want (or need). But a perfect all-powerful God would have none of these. He would be at Nirvana, a persistent state of satisfaction with nothing but the self. So "want" and "perfect" make a contradiction. Can you address either my founding statements or my logic?

[me:]You didn’t answer my questions. I know the stated purpose of sending Jesus. My question is why the situation required exactly that. Surely God, at some point, decided, "Well, they’re bad, and I want to get closer, and the exact thing required is for me to have a son, for that son to be a perfect human, for him to preach for three years and then get executed by the other humans, and then we can be closer." God decided something like that. It’s a direct implication of saying that God created everything and that this was necessary.

[you:]Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Again, you didn't answer. Why did it have to be Jesus? God is all-powerful, so he could have sent a puppy or a bamboo plant or a paramecium to bear our sins and be killed. Or he could have decided it required 40 children of his to be sacrificed. Why just one man?

Before the world began, God knew that He would need to send His Son.

Because being in the image of God isn't about what God looks like, it is about being imbued with His personal attributes. We resemble Him in our better nature, not our appearance.

Cool. Is there Biblical reason to assert that this is the correct interpretation of "in his image"?

[me:]What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences … forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin?

[you:]I understand what you're saying. You're not going to see the picture before you connect all of the dots. I'll keep supplying you the dots as I am able. I think I explained this particular question to you in more specific detail this time around, as to why the separation occurred.

I'm asking you all this to see if there's ever going to be an end or a logic to the trail of dots without having to presuppose the conclusion that gave rise to the dots in the first place. Every dot seems to give rise to another dot. Like you say about secular morality, it's a recursive chain of dots off to infinity, each dot raising more questions than it answers. Such a system would, by literal definition, not be rational: if it goes on to infinity, then it can never be rationalized.

He knew before He created that His creation would rebel at some point, and He took the necessary steps to reconcile it back to Himself at the end of time. He didn't screw up, but He did create beings capable of screwing up. To allow for the real possibility of good, He also had to allow for the real possibility of evil.

Are humans satisfying to God in whatever capacity we were created?

When scripture says "the law" what it is reffering to is the Mosaic law that was given at Mt Sinai … What we had in the beginning was not a law, but simply a choice.

So humanity had no laws from God for all that time (hundreds or thousands of years) until Mt. Sinai? We were allowed to do anything at all we wanted without fear of any punishment from God?

3 and a half years later this video gets sifted!

I wonder what this paramecium is up to now. Probably toppling over oil rigs or killing bees.

It's like the plot of Tron, but staring Paramecium.

O.K.! Think about it. Cats are born homicidal maniacs. They spend 90% of their waking hours killing insects, watching other live things such as birds with desire to catch and kill, or playing as though they are catching and killing something. The other 10% is going to the toilet and rubbing their scent on their human slaves legs in order to mark the human as their property. They are said to harbor a paramecium that causes rodents to not fear them and humans to love them. They have evolved a cry that is the frequency and modulation of a newborn human baby. Other than that, they present a regal attitude and are cute (which impression may or may not be a result of the paramecium). If cats were as large as horses, we humans would be in deep trouble! Lastly, there are no good cat recipes.

Paramecium like to listen to upbeat folk music when they eat.
Noted.

>> ^dag:
The argument is framed wrong. Of course a 50-cell blastocyst is alive, so are yeast cells and paramecium. Better to ask when is a developing fetus a human being.
And also yes the amazing dichotomy of a "culture of life" that promotes bombing countries and the death penalty is a huge mental disconnect.


No, your argument is framed wrong. There's a big difference between defenseless unborn children and terrorist organizations and axe murderers. Or is that so difficult to see?

>> ^dag:
The argument is framed wrong. Of course a 50-cell blastocyst is alive, so are yeast cells and paramecium. Better to ask when is a developing fetus a human being.
And also yes the amazing dichotomy of a "culture of life" that promotes bombing countries and the death penalty is a huge mental disconnect.


Thanks Dag, that was my point but you said it way better than I ever could. Science can't determine when a developing fetus becomes a human being. At its core the question is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.

My own 2 cents... if you analyze the DNA of a zygote you will find that it neither that of the mother nor the father but that of a unique, unborn human being. As far as I'm concerned it's human at that point and should have all the rights we attribute to humans.

I am not persuaded by the "it can't feel anything" argument. Neither can someone deep in a coma or under anesthesia, but we would consider it murder if we snuffed out their life.

I am also not persuaded by the "it would be horrid to have someone carry around their rapists' baby" argument. I agree, it would be horrid. But the baby didn't rape the woman. Despite the violent nature of its conception, it deserves the same chances for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the rest of us. That said, if we're going to force women to give birth to a constant reminder of such a traumatic incident we should also be fully willing to support the mother with both free health care and help with giving the baby away for adoption after it is born.

And before I get the "you'd change your mind if a loved one was raped"-argument let me just say my girlfriend in college was raped. I had a front-side seat to the trauma and anguish of such an attack and I know it takes a lifetime of healing to recover from it. It doesn't change the fact that the unborn baby is innocent. You want to burn your clothes after the attack? Fine. I'll get the lighter fluid. But don't take out your pain on someone who isn't the culprit.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The argument is framed wrong. Of course a 50-cell blastocyst is alive, so are yeast cells and paramecium. Better to ask when is a developing fetus a human being.

And also yes the amazing dichotomy of a "culture of life" that promotes bombing countries and the death penalty is a huge mental disconnect.