*promote the *comedy

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, June 13th, 2012 12:41pm PDT - promote requested by messenger.

Adding video to channels (Comedy) - requested by messenger.

Seen this line before, but this was a particularly funny delivery.

I'm all for mockery of god and such, but this was a pretty naff effort. There's no flair or wit to what he's saying. He's just saying stuff that's stupid about the bible.

Also, where's this guy's eye-wrangler?

If those eyes were any farther apart they'd be in different zip codes.

No bible was used in the making of this video, because it is factually incorrect. If you have to distort something to mock it you don't have a case..I thought atheists liked to boast about their bible knowledge?

Eve was tempted by Satan, not a talking snake. Adam and Eve both sinned when they ate the fruit, but the crime was not eating fruit, it was disobeying God. Their sin brought death into the world.

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not impregnate Mary; the Father sent the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, in this wise:

"And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."

Jesus did not sacrifice Himself to Himself. Again, the Father and the Son are not the same person. He was an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. He bore the punishment (death) for all sins so that through Him, we could be forgiven for our sins and be given eternal life.

"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins"

A dead body was not required for Gods plan of redemption, to correct the mistakes human beings made. What was required was a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God. Since no human being could fulfill that requirement, God sent His Son in our place.

"Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come

But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."

People are not sent to hell for doubting the love of God. They are sent to hell for their sins. God offers forgiveness to every single person, and He does not desire that any should perish, but that all will come to repentance. Never the less, because God is Holy and just, He will punish all sin.

People are not saved by taking the sacraments. That is a catholic ritual. We are only saved by faith in Jesus Christ, and that faith alone will justify us before God. We eat bread and drink of the fruit of the vine in remembrance of Him, but that is all.

The Kingdom of Heaven is not in the sky. The Kingdom of Heaven is on Earth, and will be in this Universe. We are not going anywhere. We will experience life as God had originally designed it, here on Earth, before the fall.

The gospel is simple:

We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and the wages of our sin is death. Because of sin we are spiritually separated from God and headed for His prison called hell. He has set a day to judge the world, and on that day all sin will be punished. However, God doesn't want to send anyone to hell. He created it for the devil and his angels, not human beings. He loves us, which is why God sent His only Son to bear the punishment for our sins, in our place, so we wouldn't have to go to hell. He took all of our sins upon Himself on the cross, and died in our place.

Now, because of Jesus, we can be forgiven and go free. Jesus paid our fine in full. This is the good news, that through Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that He grants us eternal life. Pray to Jesus Christ and ask Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.

You can't put the words "bible" and "factually correct" together and keep a straight face. I know you're laughing at us and our falling for your grand hoax @shinyblurry. I'm on to you, son!

I'm sincere in my beliefs, and I do believe the bible is factually accurate. There isn't enough time in the day for me to come on here and pretend that I believe something I do not. I am here because I care about the people here and I pray that you get saved.

>> ^alien_concept:

You can't put the words "bible" and "factually correct" together and keep a straight face. I know you're laughing at us and our falling for your grand hoax @shinyblurry. I'm on to you, son!

>> ^shinyblurry:

No bible was used in the making of this video, because it is factually incorrect. If you have to distort something to mock it you don't have a case..I thought atheists liked to boast about their bible knowledge?
Eve was tempted by Satan, not a talking snake. Adam and Eve both sinned when they ate the fruit, but the crime was not eating fruit, it was disobeying God. Their sin brought death into the world.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus did not impregnate Mary; the Father sent the third person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit, in this wise:
"And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."
Jesus did not sacrifice Himself to Himself. Again, the Father and the Son are not the same person. He was an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. He bore the punishment (death) for all sins so that through Him, we could be forgiven for our sins and be given eternal life.
"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins"
A dead body was not required for Gods plan of redemption, to correct the mistakes human beings made. What was required was a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God. Since no human being could fulfill that requirement, God sent His Son in our place.
"Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."
People are not sent to hell for doubting the love of God. They are sent to hell for their sins. God offers forgiveness to every single person, and He does not desire that any should perish, but that all will come to repentance. Never the less, because God is Holy and just, He will punish all sin.
People are not saved by taking the sacraments. That is a catholic ritual. We are only saved by faith in Jesus Christ, and that faith alone will justify us before God. We eat bread and drink of the fruit of the vine in remembrance of Him, but that is all.
The Kingdom of Heaven is not in the sky. The Kingdom of Heaven is on Earth, and will be in this Universe. We are not going anywhere. We will experience life as God had originally designed it, here on Earth, before the fall.
The gospel is simple:
We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and the wages of our sin is death. Because of sin we are spiritually separated from God and headed for His prison called hell. He has set a day to judge the world, and on that day all sin will be punished. However, God doesn't want to send anyone to hell. He created it for the devil and his angels, not human beings. He loves us, which is why God sent His only Son to bear the punishment for our sins, in our place, so we wouldn't have to go to hell. He took all of our sins upon Himself on the cross, and died in our place.
Now, because of Jesus, we can be forgiven and go free. Jesus paid our fine in full. This is the good news, that through Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that He grants us eternal life. Pray to Jesus Christ and ask Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.


~

saved from what?>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sincere in my beliefs, and I do believe the bible is factually accurate. There isn't enough time in the day for me to come on here and pretend that I believe something I do not. I am here because I care about the people here and I pray that you get saved.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sincere in my beliefs, and I do believe the bible is factually accurate. There isn't enough time in the day for me to come on here and pretend that I believe something I do not. I am here because I care about the people here and I pray that you get saved.
>> ^alien_concept:
You can't put the words "bible" and "factually correct" together and keep a straight face. I know you're laughing at us and our falling for your grand hoax @shinyblurry. I'm on to you, son!



I didn't realise it was imperative I use that stupid sarcasm button, haha.

@shinyblurry

You mentioned a bunch of metaphysical rules of the universe above. I'm assuming that since God created the universe and everything and everything, that he created both the physical rules and these metaphysical rules too.

Here are the ones you mentioned --> with my paraphrasing of the metaphysical "rule" as I understand it:
* "sin" --> Rule: Sin exists and is defined by a particular set of actions/thoughts/etc.
* "death" --> Rule: Death exists
* "He created [Hell] for the devil and his angels" --> Rule: Hell exists and has those properties.
* "Their sin brought death into the world." --> Rule: When the first person sins, death will come to everyone.
* "He bore the punishment (death) for all sins so that through Him, we could be forgiven for our sins and be given eternal life." --> Rule: For humans to be forgiven for our sins and be released from death, someone had to be sacrificed.
* "What was required was a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God" --> Rule: The sacrifice had to be a perfect human to be effective.

The fact that these rules exist means that God decided they should exist, right? So, why did God invent these particular rules? Why did he invent the concept of sin in the first place? Why not let us rut around like the other animals doing whatever occurs to us without the need for judgement? Why did he invent death if he loved us so much? Why did he create the rule that when one person sinned, the whole of creation would die (especially after he created humans such that they would sin all the bloody time)? Why did God create such a horrible place as Hell? Why not just love Satan and Satan's angels (all his creations) enough so that they would be good again as he expects from you and me? Why would God create such an impossible condition for the forgiveness of sins that he would have to create and send his son to be killed by his fallen creation?

This all sounds like plot-driving fantasy writing to me (Rule: the one ring can only be destroyed by being dropped into the fires of Mount Doom; Rule: Fairy dust and happy thoughts will give you the ability to fly; Rule: Walking into the special closet without thinking about it will put you in Narnia), and that's why I think the Bible is fiction too. They're such random rules of cause and effect (not to mention some of the random rules of sin itself) that they can only lead to disaster and disappointment... unless they're just plot devices that lead to a bunch of awesome fantasy stories. And that's what I currently believe.

People are not sent to hell for doubting the love of God. They are sent to hell for their sins. ... God doesn't want to send anyone to hell. He created it for the devil and his angels, not human beings. He loves us, which is why God sent His only Son to bear the punishment for our sins, in our place, so we wouldn't have to go to hell. He took all of our sins upon Himself on the cross, and died in our place.

If God doesn't want to send us to Hell, why did he invent rules so that he would? Can't God just change or break his own rules and stop sending us to Hell?

God is Holy and just.

By who's definition? What can those human words of judgement possibly mean when applied to a god? And if we are following the human meaning of "just", how is it just to create the concept of sin, create death, create rules where if you sin you die, create hell as the punishment for sin, and then create humans such that we would definitely sin? That's not just in the least. And yes, you say that you and I have the chance to redeem ourselves, but what about those of us who lived and died before we had that chance? Why should they all have to suffer? They will never have the chance to accept Jesus as saviour.

We will experience life as God had originally designed it, here on Earth, before the fall.

That's a new one for me. Can you give me a quote? I was pretty sure heaven was up in the sky somewhere, even according to the Bible. Didn't Jesus "rise" into heaven?

Now, because of Jesus, we can be forgiven and go free. Jesus paid our fine in full. This is the good news, that through Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that He grants us eternal life. Pray to Jesus Christ and ask Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.

If my fine is paid in full and I've been given eternal life, why am I praying for anything?

@shinyblurry

Eve was tempted by Satan, not a talking snake.

What was required was a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God.

People are not saved by taking the sacraments. That is a catholic ritual.

>> ^lurgee:

saved from what?>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm sincere in my beliefs, and I do believe the bible is factually accurate. There isn't enough time in the day for me to come on here and pretend that I believe something I do not. I am here because I care about the people here and I pray that you get saved.



Do you understand the gospel? To receive salvation means to be forgiven for your sins and delivered from the consequences thereof.

You mentioned a bunch of metaphysical rules of the universe above. I'm assuming that since God created the universe and everything and everything, that he created both the physical rules and these metaphysical rules too.

* "sin" --> Rule: Sin exists and is defined by a particular set of actions/thoughts/etc.

Sin is defined as disobedience to Gods commands

* "death" --> Rule: Death exists

Natural death temporarily exists..the second death is eternal

* "Their sin brought death into the world." --> Rule: When the first person sins, death will come to everyone.

This isn't a rule, it is simply a consequence of the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

* "He bore the punishment (death) for all sins so that through Him, we could be forgiven for our sins and be given eternal life." --> Rule: For humans to be forgiven for our sins and be released from death, someone had to be sacrificed.

There is a story about a King who decreed that anyone who committed the crime of adultery would have their eyes put out. This was enforced in the land for some time, until one day the prince of the kingdom was caught in the act. The King then was faced with a dilemma. On one hand He desired to be merciful to the prince, his son, but on the other hand he had to maintain his standard of justice to maintain the integrity of his authority in the kingdom. Therefore, to solve this conflict between justice and mercy, he put one of the princes eyes, and one of his own.

This story is similar to the reasons why God sent His Son to the cross. It was the solution to the conflict between His justice and His mercy.

* "What was required was a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God" --> Rule: The sacrifice had to be a perfect human to be effective.

The law was given because of sin, and the law couldn't make anyone perfect. What the law did was serve as a mirror unto man to show him what sin is. What was required was someone to perfectly fulfill that law so man could be reconciled back to God. Until that point, man had been spiritually separated from God because of sin. It took a sinless person to build that bridge and restore mans fellowship with God. That is why Jesus serves as a bridge between man and God, because it is only through His righteousness that we can reach God. Our good works are not good enough; they are like filthy rags before a Holy God.

So, why did God invent these particular rules? Why did he invent the concept of sin in the first place?

Why did your parents tell you not to play in traffic or take candy from strangers? For your protection.

Why not let us rut around like the other animals doing whatever occurs to us without the need for judgement?

Because we're not animals, and because we know better. He created us in His image and gave us a conscience to know right from wrong. We are set apart for His purposes.

Why did he invent death if he loved us so much?

Death was a punishment for sin. However, it was also a tender mercy. If mankind was immortal, we would be eternally separated from God.

Why did he create the rule that when one person sinned, the whole of creation would die (especially after he created humans such that they would sin all the bloody time)?

It wasn't a rule, but simply a consequence. When He created human beings, they were not made such that they would sin all of the time. It is when man chose to sin that his nature became corrupted. It's like how traits are passed down from their parents genetically..we inherited their sinful nature.

Why did God create such a horrible place as Hell? Why not just love Satan and Satan's angels (all his creations) enough so that they would be good again as he expects from you and me?

We don't know whether there was an offer of reconciliation to Satan or not. What we do know is that today they all stand condemned. Salvation is not "God loving us enough so we'll be good again".

Why would God create such an impossible condition for the forgiveness of sins that he would have to create and send his son to be killed by his fallen creation?

I gave an explanation for this earlier. I will say that His standard for goodness is moral perfection; that is inherent to His nature.

This all sounds like plot-driving fantasy writing to me (Rule: the one ring can only be destroyed by being dropped into the fires of Mount Doom; Rule: Fairy dust and happy thoughts will give you the ability to fly; Rule: Walking into the special closet without thinking about it will put you in Narnia), and that's why I think the Bible is fiction too. They're such random rules of cause and effect (not to mention some of the random rules of sin itself) that they can only lead to disaster and disappointment... unless they're just plot devices that lead to a bunch of awesome fantasy stories. And that's what I currently believe.

As you learn more I hope you will begin to make the connections between what we have been talking about for the past year or so. Although you are developing a more in depth understanding of the gospel, it is still on a superficial level and you have many misconceptions. If you want to understand it, then instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it. There is nothing logically contradictory about the gospel. It is internally consistent in every respect, and its depths are inexhaustible.

If God doesn't want to send us to Hell, why did he invent rules so that he would? Can't God just change or break his own rules and stop sending us to Hell?

Let's say you have a perfectly well behaved son, but one day he starts doing meth on your kitchen table and bringing hookers into his room every night. Are you going to compromise your standards and say that is okay or are you going to lay down the law and give him an ultimatum? You don't want to do anything that would harm your son, because you love him, but neither are you going to approve of his behavior, or endanger the well being of the rest of the household. You are going to let him know there are very real consequences to his behavior and enforce the rules.

God is Holy and just.

By who's definition? What can those human words of judgement possibly mean when applied to a god? And if we are following the human meaning of "just", how is it just to create the concept of sin, create death, create rules where if you sin you die, create hell as the punishment for sin, and then create humans such that we would definitely sin? That's not just in the least. And yes, you say that you and I have the chance to redeem ourselves, but what about those of us who lived and died before we had that chance? Why should they all have to suffer? They will never have the chance to accept Jesus as saviour.

God has given us progressive revelation. As I've said before, you don't go to hell for what you didn't know, you go to hell for what you do know and reject. Everyone prior to the cross was saved according the amount of revelation God had given them. For the gentiles, it would on the basis of their conscience. For the jews, it was on the basis to their adherance to the law.

The words holy and just wouldn't mean anything if God hadn't give us revelation about Himself. They mean something because of who He is. It is without Him that they would become meaningless. Essentially, it is all to say that God is perfect. Or as they say in philosophical circles, that He is a maximally great being, possessing every possible perfection.

We will experience life as God had originally designed it, here on Earth, before the fall.

That's a new one for me. Can you give me a quote? I was pretty sure heaven was up in the sky somewhere, even according to the Bible. Didn't Jesus "rise" into heaven?

Revelation 21:2-5

And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Now, because of Jesus, we can be forgiven and go free. Jesus paid our fine in full. This is the good news, that through Jesus our sins are forgiven, and that He grants us eternal life. Pray to Jesus Christ and ask Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, and you will be saved.

If my fine is paid in full and I've been given eternal life, why am I praying for anything?

For the same reason that if you wish to enter a door you must first walk through it.

>> ^messenger

Eve was tempted by Satan, not a talking snake.

Why isn't this mentioned in the original text?

How and why did people suddenly realize the serpent was actually Satan a few thousand years later?

God works by progressive revelation. However, you can find something about it in Ezekiel 28.

Why didn't God recognize Satan in the form of a serpent? It seems God's omniscence was on the fritz that day; he didn't know where Adam was hiding and didn't know he and Eve had eaten the fruit.

God did recognize Satan, which is why He pronounced this judgment, which is also a prophecy of the Messiah:

Genesis 3:15

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

It's a prophecy about Jesus defeating Satan on the cross.

Have you ever asked a question you knew the answer to? Then you can understand why God asked Adam where he was.

If God did recognize Satan, why did he punish all serpents to crawl on their bellies and eat dust and all that?

Can you see how those words would have a deeper meaning to an angelic being who is condemned to stay on Earth?

And why did they continue to do business together for the next few thousand years until the Fall? If Satan was just doing his original job (tempting humans), why was he punished at all?

The fall was when Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Satans original job was the worship leader in Heaven. Since falling from grace, he has attempted to corrupt and destroy Gods creation. He tempted Adam and Eve to gain power over them, and because Adam has dominion over the Earth, he would become the defacto ruler.

Satan has played a role as a prosecuting attorney against God creations. God allowed him to serve in this capacity, but it wasn't a "job". It was Satans delight to do so, and part of his determination to ruin the creation.

Why was this required? Why can't God just change the rules if that's what he wants? Why does he need to jump through all these hoops?

I answered this question in messangers reply if you want to look there..

>> ^xxovercastxx

blah blah blah>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^lurgee:
saved from what?>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm sincere in my beliefs, and I do believe the bible is factually accurate. There isn't enough time in the day for me to come on here and pretend that I believe something I do not. I am here because I care about the people here and I pray that you get saved.


Do you understand the gospel? To receive salvation means to be forgiven for your sins and delivered from the consequences thereof.

So in my humble 80 years or so of life, my actions will be judged for all of time. Kind of doesn't seem fair.

@shinyblurry

If Yahweh knows everything. Yahweh knew that Eve would sin.

If Yahweh "required ... a man who lived a perfect, sinless life in total obedience to God."

Why the fuck did he create Eve?!?!

Knowing full well she would sin and ruin everything for everyone who has ever existed since?

You're good at this ignoring blatant contradictions game.

@shinyblurry

Sin is defined as disobedience to Gods commands

Who defined it? Don't avoid agency by using the passive voice.

Natural death temporarily exists..the second death is eternal

I thought words had meaning. What the hell are you talking about with two deaths? Death is death. Now there's two kinds? why not eighteen kinds? Which kind did Eve bring?

This isn't a rule, it is simply a consequence of the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

That's what I mean by "rule", a pre-determined consequence. Who determined that disobedience would have to result in death (or the other "death" or whatever)? Surely God, right?

The law was given because of sin

Who gave the law? Enough with the passive voice.

On one hand He desired to be merciful to the prince, his son, but on the other hand he had to maintain his standard of justice to maintain the integrity of his authority in the kingdom. Therefore, to solve this conflict between justice and mercy, he put one of the princes eyes, and one of his own.

This isn't a good analogy. A king is a mortal who has to maintain a false authority (unless you think that kings rule by divine providence). This king made a mistake, an oversight, and later realized the consequences of his mistake. So, he fudged it by letting his son keep his second eye (a tiny punishment compared with losing both eyes) took out one of his own (again, not a big deal, comparatively) and called it even. God doesn't make mistakes. God doesn't make oversights and later realize the consequences. He knew right from the beginning what would happen.

Are you saying that God was afraid of losing his authority or losing the force of law? How can there be any consequences for God when God invented the consequences and can change them at will?

The law was given because of sin, and the law couldn't make anyone perfect. What the law did was serve as a mirror unto man to show him what sin is. What was required was someone to perfectly fulfill that law so man could be reconciled back to God. Until that point, man had been spiritually separated from God because of sin.

Again, a ton more passive voice to avoid the issue of God's agency. God, himself, determined to give the law. If it's because of sin, God invented sin too. God invented sin and made us imperfect. God made commands that were against our natures to follow. Why not just not make those commands? It's like a parent leaving out a jar of cookies, and commanding the two-year-old not to eat them. What do you think is going to happen?

It took a sinless person to build that bridge and restore mans fellowship with God.

Why? Surely God decided that a sinless person would be required to act as a bridge? Why didn't God just make us closer to begin with? Or why didn't he just come on over himself? Couldn't he? Why did he determine that to disobey his commands would create distance?

Why did your parents tell you not to play in traffic or take candy from strangers? For your protection.

Exactly. And if my parents had also invented cars and paedophiles and put them near my house, I would ask them why the hell they did that. Wouldn't you? God created the law to protect us from a danger that God created himself. Why did he create the danger in the first place? Whim?

Because we're not animals, and because we know better. He created us in His image and gave us a conscience to know right from wrong. We are set apart for His purposes.

No, we are animals, and before God's law existed, we didn't know better. Otherwise, why make laws? I'm afraid to ask you to define "his image", but I've got to know how much we could possibly resemble an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent entity. Why make sin and laws and conscience and death and hell in the first place?

Death was a punishment for sin.

Death 1 or Death 2? Why does God need to punish us at all? Does that do any good once we're dead? Is he just trying to terrify the living into doing his will while we're still alive?

It is when man chose to sin that his nature became corrupted.

So, man was uncorrupted before, but capable of sin, then immediately decided to sin and became corrupted. Simpler to say man was corrupted from the beginning, no? And it was just God's bad luck that the very first people he ever made screwed the pooch right off the bat? Or did he know they would screw up? Or did he design them to screw up? Did he make us a little too independent an rebellious? Could things have turned out any other way than they have?

And why did they become corrupt? That must have been one of God's rules, that when you sin the first time, you corrupt your DNA (or whatever) for all generations to follow. He created that consequence as much as he created the physical rules of the universe. Why?

If you want to understand it, then instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.

Falsifying things is how scientists discover real truth. If you can falsify something, then it's false. If you can't, it might be true. Scientists who propose theories are often the ones who try the hardest to falsify them. If they can do so, they know they were wrong, or maybe a bit off-base. If they can't, then it stands as a very good theory. That's what I'm doing when I ask all these questions. I cannot possibly believe anything which on its face is impossible. What I'm trying to understand is you, the faithful person. In the face of what I see as a mind-numbing array of internal inconsistencies in the Bible, I'm curious to understand how an otherwise rational person doesn't see the same thing I do. So far, you've cleared up some misconceptions I did have, but otherwise you've managed to dance around things by changing definitions of words, defining things only vaguely, removing agency from God, and telling me I don't understand. The only thing I have ever done is challenge the theory you've put in front of me for my criticism. If it's true, then I'll eventually realize it, right? But the more I plumb its depths, the less plausible it is.

...but one day he starts doing meth on your kitchen table and bringing hookers into his room every night. Are you going to compromise your standards and say that is okay or are you going to lay down the law and give him an ultimatum?

If I had such a son, and I'd also invented meth and venereal disease and made the human body both vulnerable and attracted to both of them, then I'd be pissed off at myself more than at him, and I would "uninvent" them both. And even in the real-life situation, my wife and I wouldn't resort to an ultimatum like hell. We would talk openly with him about what he's doing, what effects he thinks it's having on himself, on us, and on the rest of the family, and whether that's what he wants. We'd try and get the rest of the family to support him likewise. If he showed no intention of stopping and it was damaging the home environment, we would probably decide, regretfully, to ask him to leave with the understanding that any time for the rest of his life that he wanted to return and live like a family again, we would welcome him with open arms. What I wouldn't do is build a torture chamber in the basement and threaten him with it, then consign him there forever if he didn't change. That wouldn't be just.

coming down from God out of heaven...

Cool. So it's only up to the last book of the Bible that heaven is in the clouds, and now heaven is on Earth. You're right that that's different from what's in the video, but it's no more ridiculous to talk about living in the sky than to talk about living in an alternate parallel dimension on Earth.

i thought that long haired hippie carpenter was * deaded. that salvation mumbo jumbo makes no damn sense. thanks man! >> ^charliem:

>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^lurgee:
saved from what?>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm sincere in my beliefs, and I do believe the bible is factually accurate. There isn't enough time in the day for me to come on here and pretend that I believe something I do not. I am here because I care about the people here and I pray that you get saved.


Do you understand the gospel? To receive salvation means to be forgiven for your sins and delivered from the consequences thereof.

Didnt the jews kill jesus already? I thought he died for that shit....so no need to worry!

You guys trying to argue with the crazy person on his terms are so far down the rabbit hole... I'm sorry, but it's time to pull out.

It's like trying to lawyer a schizophrenic into a logical corner using the fragments of his psychosis as proofs. You can't trap him, because his magical imaginary friend will always provide an escape clause.

Just like in real life, best to not make eye contact and keep a steady pace as you walk on by.

Your god made me an atheist. I'm simply fulfilling his will by not believing.

Every time I argue religion, I find one more reason not to believe it. For example, until today, I'd never questioned these rules, or "consequences", as SB prefers to call them. If God made everything, then he made those consequences too, right, a fact which holds its own logical consequences for supporters. I suppose in the end none of it matters since he's already made up his mind, despite agreeing elsewhere that if I found a single inconsistency in the Bible that he'd renounce his faith.>> ^KnivesOut:

You guys trying to argue with the crazy person on his terms are so far down the rabbit hole... I'm sorry, but it's time to pull out.
It's like trying to lawyer a schizophrenic into a logical corner using the fragments of his psychosis as proofs. You can't trap him, because his magical imaginary friend will always provide an escape clause.
Just like in real life, best to not make eye contact and keep a steady pace as you walk on by.

*sigh* I don't know why everyone believes that Jesus did all of this stuff. It was Hesabub. In the 5th century Hesabub's name was replaced with Jesus's in most texts, and now everyone will go to hell because they worship the wrong guy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

>> ^messenger:

This isn't a good analogy. A king is a mortal who has to maintain a false authority (unless you think that kings rule by divine providence). This king made a mistake, an oversight, and later realized the consequences of his mistake. So, he fudged it by letting his son keep his second eye (a tiny punishment compared with losing both eyes) took out one of his own (again, not a big deal, comparatively) and called it even.

There's a better reason why this is a bad analogy. The King in the story takes half of the prince's punishment upon himself because he seemingly feels some responsibility for creating a cruel law but still punishes his son because he broke the law, cruel or not.

God, however, takes no responsibility for his foolishness, neither does he apparently desire to punish those who are guilty of sin. Rather, he creates the most innocent person of all time and has him take the fall for everybody.

If he wanted to be just, he would punish sinners fairly. If he wanted to be merciful, he would forgive them or, perhaps, ease their punishment. By punishing the innocent in place of the guilty, he has shown himself to be a psychopath.

"His justice and His mercy", indeed.

>> ^KnivesOut:

You guys trying to argue with the crazy person on his terms are so far down the rabbit hole... I'm sorry, but it's time to pull out.
It's like trying to lawyer a schizophrenic into a logical corner using the fragments of his psychosis as proofs. You can't trap him, because his magical imaginary friend will always provide an escape clause.
Just like in real life, best to not make eye contact and keep a steady pace as you walk on by.


What if you're interested in how schizophrenics think and experience the world? Should you refuse to speak to one or ask him/her questions just because his/her answers might be absurd?

ps. I think you've confused schizophrenia with DID.

>> ^messenger:

I suppose in the end none of it matters since he's already made up his mind, despite agreeing elsewhere that if I found a single inconsistency in the Bible that he'd renounce his faith.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

There's a couple hundred or so listed there.

I'm not a clinical psychologist, so I apologize if I offended any schizophrenics out there. Thanks for encouraging me to learn the difference between DID and schizophrenia.

http://www.christiansurvivors.com/didvsschizophrenia.html
>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^KnivesOut:
You guys trying to argue with the crazy person on his terms are so far down the rabbit hole... I'm sorry, but it's time to pull out.
It's like trying to lawyer a schizophrenic into a logical corner using the fragments of his psychosis as proofs. You can't trap him, because his magical imaginary friend will always provide an escape clause.
Just like in real life, best to not make eye contact and keep a steady pace as you walk on by.

What if you're interested in how schizophrenics think and experience the world? Should you refuse to speak to one or ask him/her questions just because his/her answers might be absurd?
ps. I think you've confused schizophrenia with DID.

Who defined it? Don't avoid agency by using the passive voice.

That's what I mean by "rule", a pre-determined consequence. Who determined that disobedience would have to result in death (or the other "death" or whatever)? Surely God, right?

Natural death temporarily exists..the second death is eternal

Who gave the law? Enough with the passive voice.

Again, a ton more passive voice to avoid the issue of God's agency. God, himself, determined to give the law. If it's because of sin, God invented sin too. God invented sin and made us imperfect. God made commands that were against our natures to follow. Why not just not make those commands? It's like a parent leaving out a jar of cookies, and commanding the two-year-old not to eat them. What do you think is going to happen?

I've said pretty clearly that God defined what we should or shouldn't do, and outlined consequences for those actions. If you ask why God gave us the concept of right and wrong, could it be that He knew which behaviors were good for us and which were bad? If you ask why God gave us consequences, could it be that God wanted to discourage us from bad behavior?

Neither did God create sin. God created the conditions in which free will creatures could make a choice between obeying or disobeying God. He didn't create them to sin, and neither did He cause them to sin. He gave them an honest choice and it was their choice that created sin. What God allowed is the condition to exist where sin was possible. Why did God allow us to sin? Because if He didn't, we would be nothing more than robots.

I thought words had meaning. What the hell are you talking about with two deaths? Death is death. Now there's two kinds? why not eighteen kinds? Which kind did Eve bring?

The two kinds of death are, when the body dies, and when your soul is cast into hell.

This isn't a good analogy. A king is a mortal who has to maintain a false authority (unless you think that kings rule by divine providence). This king made a mistake, an oversight, and later realized the consequences of his mistake. So, he fudged it by letting his son keep his second eye (a tiny punishment compared with losing both eyes) took out one of his own (again, not a big deal, comparatively) and called it even. God doesn't make mistakes. God doesn't make oversights and later realize the consequences. He knew right from the beginning what would happen.

Are you saying that God was afraid of losing his authority or losing the force of law? How can there be any consequences for God when God invented the consequences and can change them at will?

It is a good analogy because it illustrates the conflict between justice and mercy, and why God sent His Son. On one hand, God is holy, and He must punish all sin. On the other, He is merciful and wants to forgive us. What I am saying is, God cannot compromise His integrity to forgive us. Therefore, He sent His Son to take our punishment, in our place, so that He could offer us forgiveness through the cross. If you want to know why God will not lower His standards, use some common sense. Should we just let murderers and rapists go free in the hopes they will reform themselves? Will this encourage or discourage more crime? What about the victims?

Why? Surely God decided that a sinless person would be required to act as a bridge? Why didn't God just make us closer to begin with? Or why didn't he just come on over himself? Couldn't he? Why did he determine that to disobey his commands would create distance?

God sent His Son over on His behalf, remember? Fellowship with God is a privilege, and to the extent that we abuse it, that is the extent to which He will remove Himself from it.

Exactly. And if my parents had also invented cars and paedophiles and put them near my house, I would ask them why the hell they did that. Wouldn't you? God created the law to protect us from a danger that God created himself. Why did he create the danger in the first place? Whim?

We created the evil in this world, not Him. He gave us laws to keep us from evil.

No, we are animals, and before God's law existed, we didn't know better. Otherwise, why make laws? I'm afraid to ask you to define "his image", but I've got to know how much we could possibly resemble an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent entity. Why make sin and laws and conscience and death and hell in the first place?

You believe you are an animal. And we did know better..God gave us a conscience to know right from wrong, and God told Adam and Eve what was good, and not good, to do. If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:

http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

Why why why why why why? First, read some of the things I've said and connect the dots. Second, God created us to have fellowship with Him.

Death 1 or Death 2? Why does God need to punish us at all? Does that do any good once we're dead? Is he just trying to terrify the living into doing his will while we're still alive?

I've already answered about punishment. Again, God wants us to have fellowship with Him. Rebellion against God is a choice; God gives everyone enough information and opportunities to make the right choices.

So, man was uncorrupted before, but capable of sin, then immediately decided to sin and became corrupted. Simpler to say man was corrupted from the beginning, no? And it was just God's bad luck that the very first people he ever made screwed the pooch right off the bat? Or did he know they would screw up? Or did he design them to screw up? Did he make us a little too independent an rebellious? Could things have turned out any other way than they have?

Man wasn't corrupt before he sinned; he was created innocent. However, he was imbued with the ability to make a free choice. God didn't create man to sin, as I've said, and neither did he force man to obey him. He simply gave him the choices, showed him what was good and what wasn't, warned him of the consequences, and let him make the choice.

Did God know they would screw up? There is some contention there among theologians. Some believe that He did, and that He allowed creation to go forward to demonstrate His glory. I don't necessarily believe that, because scripture shows God dynamically interacting with His creation. If it were true that God knew absolutely everything that would happen, it would mean He was just "going through the motions". I believe that God does have an absolute foreknowledge about how His creation will turn out, and that He does know the future, but that He leaves some things open to give us free will.

And why did they become corrupt? That must have been one of God's rules, that when you sin the first time, you corrupt your DNA (or whatever) for all generations to follow. He created that consequence as much as he created the physical rules of the universe. Why?

They lost their innocence when they disobeyed God and ate of the fruit. Their nature fundamentally changed as a consequence. Also, death came into the world. The human experience went from paradise to paradise lost, and humans had to fend for themselves. The corruption was a confluence of all of these different factors.

Falsifying things is how scientists discover real truth. If you can falsify something, then it's false. If you can't, it might be true. Scientists who propose theories are often the ones who try the hardest to falsify them. If they can do so, they know they were wrong, or maybe a bit off-base. If they can't, then it stands as a very good theory. That's what I'm doing when I ask all these questions. I cannot possibly believe anything which on its face is impossible. What I'm trying to understand is you, the faithful person. In the face of what I see as a mind-numbing array of internal inconsistencies in the Bible, I'm curious to understand how an otherwise rational person doesn't see the same thing I do. So far, you've cleared up some misconceptions I did have, but otherwise you've managed to dance around things by changing definitions of words, defining things only vaguely, removing agency from God, and telling me I don't understand. The only thing I have ever done is challenge the theory you've put in front of me for my criticism. If it's true, then I'll eventually realize it, right? But the more I plumb its depths, the less plausible it is.

The only way you'll realize it is if the Holy Spirit changes your heart. Until then this remains the truth:

1 Corinthians 2:14

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

If I had such a son, and I'd also invented meth and venereal disease and made the human body both vulnerable and attracted to both of them, then I'd be pissed off at myself more than at him, and I would "uninvent" them both. And even in the real-life situation, my wife and I wouldn't resort to an ultimatum like hell. We would talk openly with him about what he's doing, what effects he thinks it's having on himself, on us, and on the rest of the family, and whether that's what he wants. We'd try and get the rest of the family to support him likewise. If he showed no intention of stopping and it was damaging the home environment, we would probably decide, regretfully, to ask him to leave with the understanding that any time for the rest of his life that he wanted to return and live like a family again, we would welcome him with open arms. What I wouldn't do is build a torture chamber in the basement and threaten him with it, then consign him there forever if he didn't change. That wouldn't be just.

God didn't invent the evil in the world, man did. Yes, you would kick him out of the house if he refused to change. What if after you kicked him out, he was shot and killed? Did you force him to act that way? Or did you do everything in your power to help him, and change him? Whether you think hell is fair or not, and remember that is based on your own imperfect sense of justice, I think you have to admit that people are ultimately responsible for their own choices. If God makes it clear what the consequences are, when someone ends up in hell, who else do they have to blame but themselves?

coming down from God out of heaven...

Cool. So it's only up to the last book of the Bible that heaven is in the clouds, and now heaven is on Earth. You're right that that's different from what's in the video, but it's no more ridiculous to talk about living in the sky than to talk about living in an alternate parallel dimension on Earth.

No, it's not. There is a Heaven in which God dwells, but He moves His dwelling place to Earth to live with us. That is what it says through the entire bible. What you're referring to is the pop-culture misconceptions of what scripture says. People hear their entire lives about scripture from the culture and assume they're true, and then they repeat them to others as fact, like in this video, because they are ignorant of what scripture actually says. Many of the bibles most ardent critics have never actually read it. Neither is it an "alternate parallel dimension" on Earth. It is here, on this Earth.

>> ^messenger

Firstly, while Jesus was born a human being, He is the Son of God. He is eternal, and has always existed. Jesus was born sinless because that is His nature.

Secondly, Jesus voluntarily went to the cross. When Satan came to tempt Him, He was offered the choice to forgo the cross and assume kingship over the entire world. Instead, He chose to be obedient to His Father. He did what He did out of love, both for us, and for His Father. Not only this, but He went to the cross to destroy the work of the devil. He defeated Satan on the cross, by breaking the power of sin and death. The cross was a victory for Him, not a defeat. He bore our punishment willingly, and He fixed what human beings had broken in the process. What the cross demonstrates is the love of God, that even while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

>> ^xxovercastxx

You made yourself an atheist, and scripture says you are without excuse. You're fulfilling your own will by rejecting Him.

>> ^garmachi:

Your god made me an atheist. I'm simply fulfilling his will by not believing.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You made yourself an atheist, and scripture says you are without excuse. You're fulfilling your own will by rejecting Him.
>> ^garmachi:
Your god made me an atheist. I'm simply fulfilling his will by not believing.



Then I am able to (easily) act in opposition to his will. What does this tell me about his alleged omnipotence?

It tells me that he didn't create you as a robot, but as a being with free will, to make the free choice to obey or disobey His will. It also tells me that you are free to experience the consequences of that choice.

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

He stands at the door and knocks, but He isn't going to kick your door down. It's up to you whether to open it or not.

>> ^garmachi:

>> ^shinyblurry:
You made yourself an atheist, and scripture says you are without excuse. You're fulfilling your own will by rejecting Him.
>> ^garmachi:
Your god made me an atheist. I'm simply fulfilling his will by not believing.


Then I am able to (easily) act in opposition to his will. What does this tell me about his alleged omnipotence?

>> ^shinyblurry:

It tells me that he didn't create you as a robot, but as a being with free will, to make the free choice to obey or disobey His will. It also tells me that you are free to experience the consequences of that choice.
Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
He stands at the door and knocks, but He isn't going to kick your door down. It's up to you whether to open it or not.
>> ^garmachi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
You made yourself an atheist, and scripture says you are without excuse. You're fulfilling your own will by rejecting Him.
>> ^garmachi:
Your god made me an atheist. I'm simply fulfilling his will by not believing.


Then I am able to (easily) act in opposition to his will. What does this tell me about his alleged omnipotence?



The Bible is literal truth. Hesabub is just asking if he can come over for dinner. Or lunch, really, I guess. That's what supper used to be, right?

>> ^shinyblurry:

He stands at the door and knocks, but He isn't going to kick your door down. It's up to you whether to open it or not.


I appreciate your concern for my soul. Your energy would be better spent on conversation between you and your god. I am as immune to scripture as you are to logic.

I assume that you'll go for the last word (I know your type) so I'll just stop here. Cheers.

>> ^garmachi:

>> ^shinyblurry:
He stands at the door and knocks, but He isn't going to kick your door down. It's up to you whether to open it or not.

I appreciate your concern for my soul. Your energy would be better spent on conversation between you and your god. I am as immune to scripture as you are to logic.
I assume that you'll go for the last word (I know your type) so I'll just stop here. Cheers.


I'm fine with ending the conversation amicably. Have a good one.

Shinyblurry is the only person I've ever seen who can type with a thousand-yard stare.

I'm glad you finally discovered YouTube, Jesus. I still don't believe any of your religious mumbo-jumbo, but I can be bought.

This video was o.k., not really that funny not that great. I'll upvote, but really the conversation underneath is more interesting.

It's interesting to me how much we use logic and it's precepts in our daily lives: "Should I drive (trust) my car to work?", "Should I walk over this suspension bridge?"., etc... -- and so on...

BUT, when it comes to religion we don't DARE use logic against it. I finally used it on mine and was out very quickly (and for shiny, it was a subject much as they are bringing up TO YOU, not what would *exclusively* be brought up against a Mormon as I know you LOVE to do that do SO VERY MUCH).

Logic is humanities greatest WEAPON. You can fight GODS with it, because they cannot merely pull the wool over your eye's to become the ONE and TRUE champion. Others will come together and they will see the errors in the ways a "God" is trying to manipulate, "reality". Sometimes this must even make you ask the question (if I was a believer) is Satan actually the REAL God and we are merely getting a book of events from the *winner*.

History is shaped by the winners not the losers, you might do well to remember that fallacy as well--it is another bullet hole possible in the Bible. Otherwise I agree, if you cannot use logic as your friend you will never exceed or go BEYOND your expectations., as many have said.

>> ^shinyblurry:


Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.


Wait, so it's a grammatical thing? How did god use improper grammar in the bible?

*quality>> ^garmachi:

Your god made me an atheist. I'm simply fulfilling his will by not believing.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by lurgee.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I am here because I care about the people here and I pray that you get saved.

Bullshit. You only come in here to blather on about how superior you are, you arrogant shitbag.

What are the laws of logic and where do they come from? How do you account for them?

>> ^kceaton1:

This video was o.k., not really that funny not that great. I'll upvote, but really the conversation underneath is more interesting.
It's interesting to me how much we use logic and it's precepts in our daily lives: "Should I drive (trust) my car to work?", "Should I walk over this suspension bridge?"., etc... -- and so on...
BUT, when it comes to religion we don't DARE use logic against it. I finally used it on mine and was out very quickly (and for shiny, it was a subject much as they are bringing up TO YOU, not what would exclusively be brought up against a Mormon as I know you LOVE to do that do SO VERY MUCH).
Logic is humanities greatest WEAPON. You can fight GODS with it, because they cannot merely pull the wool over your eye's to become the ONE and TRUE champion. Others will come together and they will see the errors in the ways a "God" is trying to manipulate, "reality". Sometimes this must even make you ask the question (if I was a believer) is Satan actually the REAL God and we are merely getting a book of events from the winner .
History is shaped by the winners not the losers, you might do well to remember that fallacy as well--it is another bullet hole possible in the Bible. Otherwise I agree, if you cannot use logic as your friend you will never exceed or go BEYOND your expectations., as many have said.

I don't deserve Gods grace so how could I be superior? Jesus did it all on the cross..all I did was ask Him to save me.

>> ^Payback:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I am here because I care about the people here and I pray that you get saved.
Bullshit. You only come in here to blather on about how superior you are, you arrogant shitbag.

>> ^Bruti79:

>> ^shinyblurry:

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Wait, so it's a grammatical thing? How did god use improper grammar in the bible?


You could think of it like water..it can be liquid, ice and vapor..but it is still water. That is analogous to the Holy Trinity.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^Bruti79:
>> ^shinyblurry:

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Wait, so it's a grammatical thing? How did god use improper grammar in the bible?

You could think of it like water..it can be liquid, ice and vapor..but it is still water. That is analogous to the Holy Trinity.


Even in three different states, the same water molecules can't exist in different states at the same time. That's an analogy though. I want to know the true answer. Either it's bad grammar, or how can god be three different things at the same time, when other things can't? What about only worshiping the one true god, when this one is three separate god beings? Why isn't that hypocritical?

Hi Shinyblurry,

I suppose everyone picks on you because you're one of few Christians on the sift who actually sticks around and defends his position. Are there any others? Not many stay I imagine...

Being such a representative of the faith I want to ask you an honest question that isn't designed to be sarcastic or make you look bad in any way but is just a simple question that I have wondered about for a long time and I'm curious to what your answer is because you seem to give fairly thorough answers.

Growing up I lived with a single mom who basically held the same view I held now, she didn't know if there was a God or not but she also encouraged me to experiment with any religious views that I felt like. I remember going to various church services on many different occasions, we had Jewish friends and took part in their ceremonies/festivities, same with Christian friends, even Muslim etc.. All this time my Mom was remarkable in the fact she neither dismissed or accepted any of these views, she/we simply took part with an open mind didn't try to impose any judgments. Did we give all religions equal time? No not necessarily but I don't think it would of been possible to live a more open and genuinely inquisitive childhood. My mother didn't stand in my way of finding a fulfilling religious path in life nor a none religious one.

Anyway, don't want to sidetrack this question too much, just wanted to give you some background as to where I'm coming from.

My question is this:

From this open point of view, I found that as a child, and later in life, all I saw around me were people telling me that their religion was the right one. They were all perfectly sincere and genuine in their beliefs, and they all seemed perfectly happy enough, but I personally found it odd that no God ever made an attempt to connect with me personally. From my point of view, everyone was genuine in their beliefs, but their beliefs were all different, so how was I supposed to know which one to choose? I attempted to pray to god when I was child because I was genuinely curious and wanted to know what I was missing, but I never received any indication that something was listening to me. Of course we could argue that I went about it in the wrong way, as I most likely did, but as a child (and as a grown up now) who grew up in a household where I was free to follow any path that I liked, how I was supposed to know that your God, i.e. the Christian God with Jesus in the mix was the right one to follow.

You mentioned in a previous comment that "God gives everyone enough information and opportunities to make the right choices" but personally all the information I see are 2 books and a whole bunch of HUMANS telling me that they are true. But the problem for me personally is that there are many many books with many many human supporters backing them up and from my point of view they are essentially all equal, i.e. I have never seen any indications that one group has more truth behind it than any other. Why does God then, rely on these imperfect human agents in order to spread the truth about it's existence, why didn't God attempt to make a personal connection with me?

Again please don't take this as any kind of personal attack, I'm generally interested in the answer to this question and I'd like to think that I have an open mind. In order to potentially make this question simpler to answer, here's an analogy that I think works well... say a human child was lost to his parents in the woods and he/she somehow managed to survive in the wilderness (not very likely I realize). This child would have no concept of human language or culture, would essentially be a wild animal but would still, for all intents and purposes, be human. Would this person ever come to find God/Jesus? If so how, with no bible or other people to tell him/her about it. Would God come to this person personally and inform them of everything they need to know? If so, why didn't God come to me to help me make a decision?

Cheers,

- Adam

blah blah blah written by shinyblurry


So, how long did it take you to pass the fourth grade? Because it looks like you have it down now, congrats. Now just wait until you make it to seventh, it is a real eye opener.

And anyway I am sure that many of us have believed in Christianity at one point and that is why we are not open-minded to it any longer. We evolved, we learned, we grew. There is stuff out there, it exists where humans cannot go or see... if there is any proof of a God it is so incomprehensible that no humanly tome could ever express it because it would be so far beyond our earthen lands that we evolved and adapted to that we would have no knowledge of how to communicate or even perceive what it is, what we are made of and what the hell is going on in this vastly complex universe. Point being, if God communicated to Moses, Moses would not understand one fucking word. And if he did understand his mind would probably have physically imploded... like Grahams Number, his head would have imploded into a blackhole.

All religions are bullshit, not just Christianity. Your welcome.

>> ^PalmliX:

Hi Shinyblurry,
I suppose everyone picks on you because you're one of few Christians on the sift who actually sticks around and defends his position. Are there any others? Not many stay I imagine...
Being such a representative of the faith I want to ask you an honest question that isn't designed to be sarcastic or make you look bad in any way but is just a simple question that I have wondered about for a long time and I'm curious to what your answer is because you seem to give fairly thorough answers.
Growing up I lived with a single mom who basically held the same view I held now, she didn't know if there was a God or not but she also encouraged me to experiment with any religious views that I felt like. I remember going to various church services on many different occasions, we had Jewish friends and took part in their ceremonies/festivities, same with Christian friends, even Muslim etc.. All this time my Mom was remarkable in the fact she neither dismissed or accepted any of these views, she/we simply took part with an open mind didn't try to impose any judgments. Did we give all religions equal time? No not necessarily but I don't think it would of been possible to live a more open and genuinely inquisitive childhood. My mother didn't stand in my way of finding a fulfilling religious path in life nor a none religious one.
Anyway, don't want to sidetrack this question too much, just wanted to give you some background as to where I'm coming from.
My question is this:
From this open point of view, I found that as a child, and later in life, all I saw around me were people telling me that their religion was the right one. They were all perfectly sincere and genuine in their beliefs, and they all seemed perfectly happy enough, but I personally found it odd that no God ever made an attempt to connect with me personally. From my point of view, everyone was genuine in their beliefs, but their beliefs were all different, so how was I supposed to know which one to choose? I attempted to pray to god when I was child because I was genuinely curious and wanted to know what I was missing, but I never received any indication that something was listening to me. Of course we could argue that I went about it in the wrong way, as I most likely did, but as a child (and as a grown up now) who grew up in a household where I was free to follow any path that I liked, how I was supposed to know that your God, i.e. the Christian God with Jesus in the mix was the right one to follow.
You mentioned in a previous comment that "God gives everyone enough information and opportunities to make the right choices" but personally all the information I see are 2 books and a whole bunch of HUMANS telling me that they are true. But the problem for me personally is that there are many many books with many many human supporters backing them up and from my point of view they are essentially all equal, i.e. I have never seen any indications that one group has more truth behind it than any other. Why does God then, rely on these imperfect human agents in order to spread the truth about it's existence, why didn't God attempt to make a personal connection with me?
Again please don't take this as any kind of personal attack, I'm generally interested in the answer to this question and I'd like to think that I have an open mind. In order to potentially make this question simpler to answer, here's an analogy that I think works well... say a human child was lost to his parents in the woods and he/she somehow managed to survive in the wilderness (not very likely I realize). This child would have no concept of human language or culture, would essentially be a wild animal but would still, for all intents and purposes, be human. Would this person ever come to find God/Jesus? If so how, with no bible or other people to tell him/her about it. Would God come to this person personally and inform them of everything they need to know? If so, why didn't God come to me to help me make a decision?
Cheers,
- Adam


It's like if you have a teddy bear. You believe that it's real and helps/comforts you in life. Other people have different teddy bears and you laugh at them because they believe their teddy bears are real and you know they aren't. Or you have people with the same teddy bear you have, but they treat it in ways you feel is wrong and not what your teddy bear would like, using it as a pillow maybe.

Then someone comes along without any teddy bear at all and tells you that you don't need one.

Suddenly the people with other teddy bears or teddy bear ways don't seem so bad. At least they have a teddy bear. You would even gang up with the false teddy bear people to go against this guy.

The non-believer is the real threat, ask yourself why.

>> ^lurgee:

saved from what?>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm sincere in my beliefs, and I do believe the bible is factually accurate. There isn't enough time in the day for me to come on here and pretend that I believe something I do not. I am here because I care about the people here and I pray that you get saved.



If he just admitted that he doesn't care about videosift, that he's just here with an agenda to convert us to his religion. Would that be grounds for banning?

I mean we wouldn't let spambots or corporate shills in here trying to market us stuff in here right? Why should religion be any different? both are trying to sell us stuff.

There is no freedom of religion on a private site

Hey thanks for your response Enzo!

If I had a Teddy Bear, then wouldn't I be justified in believing it's real because I could sense it with all 5 of my senses? As would anyone else I handed it to?

Or are you suggesting that I couldn't detect this bear with any of my senses, but I still believed it was real? Then I think most people would probably call me mentally ill. Myself included.

I also find the idea of ganging up with other people who share a belief (even if it's completely in contrast to your own) against those without any belief, a little scary.

Is it is far better to have ANY belief, no matter how ridiculous, unfounded, or even dangerous, than no belief? And should we really team up with other believers and "go against" those who make no such claims? Personally I would call this type of behavior mob/herd mentality or gang warfare, tribalism. An us or them mentality. I find this idea in a modern society a little frightening.

Your closing question "The non-believer is the real threat, ask yourself why." It's a difficult question to answer for a "non-believer" such as myself. Non-believer in the sense that so far, no one person's claim about the existence of an invisible Teddy Bear... has convinced me enough to worry and loose sleep at night.

I don't see how someone who doesn't believe in some variation of an unprovable belief is more of a threat than someone who does. Wouldn't it just be one less thing to fight about? i.e. if no one believed in Teddy Bears then there wouldn't be an issue in the first place? Because no one would even be talking about it?

I'm interested to hear your answer!

- Adam
>> ^Enzoblue:

>> ^PalmliX:


It's like if you have a teddy bear. You believe that it's real and helps/comforts you in life. Other people have different teddy bears and you laugh at them because they believe their teddy bears are real and you know they aren't. Or you have people with the same teddy bear you have, but they treat it in ways you feel is wrong and not what your teddy bear would like, using it as a pillow maybe.
Then someone comes along without any teddy bear at all and tells you that you don't need one.
Suddenly the people with other teddy bears or teddy bear ways don't seem so bad. At least they have a teddy bear. You would even gang up with the false teddy bear people to go against this guy.
The non-believer is the real threat, ask yourself why.

It's not three different Gods..it's three persons, one God. There is only one God, and that
God is three persons. How can God be three persons at the same time? Perhaps because He is
hyper-dimensional, although I don't think that would be an adequate description in reality. I think though that the concept itself illuminates the potential differences between His existence and ours.

>> ^Bruti79:

>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^Bruti79:
>> ^shinyblurry:

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Wait, so it's a grammatical thing? How did god use improper grammar in the bible?

You could think of it like water..it can be liquid, ice and vapor..but it is still water. That is analogous to the Holy Trinity.

Even in three different states, the same water molecules can't exist in different states at the same time. That's an analogy though. I want to know the true answer. Either it's bad grammar, or how can god be three different things at the same time, when other things can't? What about only worshiping the one true god, when this one is three separate god beings? Why isn't that hypocritical?

Hey Adam,

Thank you for sharing your background with me, and for your kind-hearted attitude. I haven't taken any offense to what you've said. I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.

I'll relate some of my background to you first of all. I grew up in a secular home, and there wasn't any talk of religion in my household, for or against. There was a bible in my house, and although I attempted to read it as a child, I didn't get past the "begats" in Genesis. I thought that perhaps that was the entire rest of the book. I grew up knowing nothing much about religion, and so I was agnostic by default.

It wasn't until a bit later in life that I received revelation that there is a God. At the time, I had started to ponder what the truth actually was. I started to search for it, because I felt that the love was slowly draining out of this world, that things were going really wrong, and it got to the point where I felt personally convicted to stand up and do something. What, I had no idea, but more than anything else, I wanted to know the real truth.

It was very shortly after this that I received revelation from God of His existence. Although I wasn't precisely looking for God at the time, I believe that He gave me this revelation because I was searching for the truth. God showed me that He was there, and that He is personally interested and involved in my life, and that He loved me. Needless to say, this was utterly shocking, and as naturalistic materialist, my mind was blown. I found out in a moments time that all that I knew was in some way, wrong. There was no room in my worldview for a Spirit, but God shattered that mold.

He didn't come out and say who He was, though. Instead, He had me investigate all of the various religions, belief systems, philosophies etc that I could..everything from Asatru to Zen Buddhism, and while I was doing this He gave me clues about Himself along the way. What I ended up believing was that none of the worlds religions were correct. I essentially believed that while they all might contain some element of thetruth about God, they were imperfect representations of who He is. I definitely did not believe that Christianity could be the one true faith. I had that picked out from the beginning as something I profoundly disagreed with.

Which is why it was the last religion I investigated. The actual truth was that I didn't know very much about it. I had, like many atheists do, a lot of things picked out of the bible which made me believe I could just dismiss it outright. It turned out though when I actually really read the bible that the understanding I thought I had was incredibly superficial (and self-deceiving). I had tried to read it before, but there was always veil there that prevented me from really understanding it. This time though that veil was taken away and everything became alive to me. The reason for this was that what I was reading was corresponding to those clues that God had given me about Himself that I had mentioned earlier. God had reinforced certain ideas and principles about Himself to me, which didn't really make any sense at the time (and indeed drove me crazy trying to figure out what He meant), but suddenly the meaning was unlocked and made crystal clear through what I was reading in scripture.

Because of that, I started to develop a simple faith in what I was reading. On that basis I put some faith in the bible as being at least potentially accurate, and I decided to give my life to Jesus Christ. That's when God showed me that is who He is. When I gave my heart over to Him, He supernaturally transformed me, and He gave me a new life free of anxiety, addiction and depression. He exchanged those things for peace and love and joy. Where there was darkness before, He had brought light.

So, that's my testimony. When you ask why didn't God reveal Himself to you at that time, a few things come to mind. The first is that everything is done in His timing. God has a plan, much bigger than our plans, and I believe that there were many things God wanted to show me before He brought me to Christianity. He wanted me to experience what I did so that when I became a Christian, I would be more effective in communicating with others who are seekers like I was. So that I would be able to relate to them better than someone who grew up in the faith could have. It could be the same for you, that God has had many things to teach you, to give a certain ministry to others, and for your own understanding.

Second, although you are a non-believer, you seem to have a genuine desire to know the truth, and to know, if there is a God, who He is, and what He wants from you. I believe God has placed that desire into your heart so that it would lead you to find Him, as He did in mine. I believe that you're asking me this question for a reason, and that reason is that God is reaching out to you. I would suggest to you that you pray to God and invite Him into your life, and ask Him to forgive your sins. Part of the Lords prayer is "Your will be done, your Kingdom come". Tell God, if this is so, that you're willing to surrender your will for His will in your life. I have prayed that God would hear your prayer and lead you to Him. I also recommend that you read the Gospel of John.

You're right, that from your perspective there may be no reason why you should believe one religion is any better than the other. I shared that view for all of the years I was searching. I can give you a lot of good reasons why Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, but only God can change your heart.

What God doesn't expect is that you are going to figure Him out. Only He could reveal the truth to you. What He does do is give you opportunities in life to get closer to Him. They could be, for instance, situations that test your moral fabric. "What does he do when no one else is looking?" "How does he treat people when he has nothing to gain?". It's how you live your life that is proof of what is in your heart, and that is what God is interested in. I think that is what determines how close to Him you will get. What scripture guarantees though, is that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. That you would have the desire to do that is a gift from above.

In regards to your forest question, God speaks to us in many different ways. A person doesn't need language to understand that there is a higher power. In Romans 1:18-21 it speaks to the fact that God gives a general revelation through His creation of His power and Godhead. How could this man learn about who God is? Well, no one is unreachable on this planet. God could lead him out, or lead someone in. He could give the man dreams and visions.

So I hope that is a satisfactory answer. I couldn't tell you precisely why God hasn't reached out to you before, but what I feel is that He is reaching out to you now. The question is, will you answer His call?

God bless you,

Joshua

>> ^PalmliX

@shinyblurry

Please keep in mind when you answer me that I’m not asking you for the details because it’s an interesting story and I want to know all of the lore like a Star Wars fanboy. I’m asking because -- unlike the majority of people you probably speak with -- I’m giving your faith every benefit of the doubt I reasonably can as a rational person. For me to accept the story, it must hold together. For it to hold, all apparent problems must be resolved without relying on tautology.

My main thrust in this particular comment thread is dealing with the issue that for everything that appears impossible or utterly fantastic to me, when I raise it, you explain it, but with something else equally fantastic (Asserting that God has to punish us for our sins is just as fantastical as asserting that God doesn’t want to punish us), so I’m not left understanding things any better. So, I challenge that new thing, and on it goes until you run out of scripture.

Then, although my questions are as valid as before, you have no real answers. At these times you give quasi-answers: you phrase your answers in the passive voice (“…what was required…”); you answer with a leading question that asserts a comparison without your having to say they're equal (“Wouldn’t you…?”), with a rhetorical question (“Could it be that…?”), or a poor analogy rather than a declarative (The King’s law about adultery, or comparing rapists going to prison with lapsed church-goers (one example of a mortal sin) being sent to Hell); or you criticize how I’m thinking (“…instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.”; and, “use some common sense”). So my question doesn't get answered.

So, as you're talking to a group of mostly logical, scientific-minded sceptics here, why not frame your answers so they make sense to your audience? Ask yourself the next logical sceptical question that springs from the answer you just gave until you arrive at something that really makes sense.

I have a feeling that by "real" @Enzoblue meant that the Teddy bear was alive and had thoughts and desires, like most of us projected onto our stuffed animals as children, not that there was any question whether the toy physically existed in the world, like how Calvin believes Hobbes is "real".>> ^PalmliX:
If I had a Teddy Bear, then wouldn't I be justified in believing it's real because I could sense it with all 5 of my senses? As would anyone else I handed it to?

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's not three different Gods..it's three persons, one God. There is only one God, and that
God is three persons. How can God be three persons at the same time? Perhaps because He is
hyper-dimensional, although I don't think that would be an adequate description in reality. I think though that the concept itself illuminates the potential differences between His existence and ours.


How can god be a person and a god at the same time? How does a person exist as a god and a human at the same time? Removing the possibility of god being three identical clones and using your model. Logic and physics state that:
1)God is three persons
2)These three people are god
3)They are not duplicates of each other
4)Therefore: There are three separate gods

This all would have been summed up better had someone used better grammar.

>> ^PalmliX:

Hey thanks for your response Enzo!
If I had a Teddy Bear, then wouldn't I be justified in believing it's real because I could sense it with all 5 of my senses? As would anyone else I handed it to?
Or are you suggesting that I couldn't detect this bear with any of my senses, but I still believed it was real? Then I think most people would probably call me mentally ill. Myself included.
I also find the idea of ganging up with other people who share a belief (even if it's completely in contrast to your own) against those without any belief, a little scary.
Is it is far better to have ANY belief, no matter how ridiculous, unfounded, or even dangerous, than no belief? And should we really team up with other believers and "go against" those who make no such claims? Personally I would call this type of behavior mob/herd mentality or gang warfare, tribalism. An us or them mentality. I find this idea in a modern society a little frightening.
Your closing question "The non-believer is the real threat, ask yourself why." It's a difficult question to answer for a "non-believer" such as myself. Non-believer in the sense that so far, no one person's claim about the existence of an invisible Teddy Bear... has convinced me enough to worry and loose sleep at night.
I don't see how someone who doesn't believe in some variation of an unprovable belief is more of a threat than someone who does. Wouldn't it just be one less thing to fight about? i.e. if no one believed in Teddy Bears then there wouldn't be an issue in the first place? Because no one would even be talking about it?
I'm interested to hear your answer!
- Adam

The teddy bear belief I put represents the belief in the supernatural. There are people who simply don't believe in supernatural things at all. No ghosts, no spirit world, no voodoo, mind reading, water divining, astrology, and yes, even gods. This is the one step you need to consider.

When you say "I don't see how someone who doesn't believe in some variation of an unprovable belief is more of a threat than someone who does.", you're admitting that the belief in question doesn't exist. It's unprovable because it's a product of the mind and is limited to the mind, otherwise there would be a way for science to detect it. It can be incredibly real for the believer, but it doesn't exist in the real world, (therefore unprovable), and doesn't effect anyone who doesn't believe it. The non-believer is the only threat because the belief is dependent on more minds that believe, that's the only way the belief can propagate. This is why religion pushes faith and belief above all else.

The benefits of not believing in the supernatural are endless. For me personally, it's that the phrase "Why me?" has lost all meaning. Just consider how much anxiety and guilt you have for things like, "am i on the right path?", "am I being punished for something?", "what's god trying to tell me?", "is that a sign or just coincidence?". All that goes away. It's liberating like you wouldn't believe.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's not three different Gods..it's three persons, one God. There is only one God, and that
God is three persons. How can God be three persons at the same time? Perhaps because He is
hyper-dimensional, although I don't think that would be an adequate description in reality. I think though that the concept itself illuminates the potential differences between His existence and ours.
>> ^Bruti79:
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^Bruti79:
>> ^shinyblurry:

Jesus and the Father are not the same person. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, but they are both God. God is three persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Wait, so it's a grammatical thing? How did god use improper grammar in the bible?

You could think of it like water..it can be liquid, ice and vapor..but it is still water. That is analogous to the Holy Trinity.

Even in three different states, the same water molecules can't exist in different states at the same time. That's an analogy though. I want to know the true answer. Either it's bad grammar, or how can god be three different things at the same time, when other things can't? What about only worshiping the one true god, when this one is three separate god beings? Why isn't that hypocritical?



Do you mean "persons" like "people?" Of not, what is your definition of a person? If so, if they are people, then it/they/he must sin right? But if so, do they just punish each other for their sins? And if so, do they use paper/rock/scissors? Because I would think that's the most effective way of doing things.

Santa is 3 persons. The actual Santa, Mom and dad (that really counts as one person), and the christmas spirt. Its simple.

Actually many are not aware of this, but there are a counsil of gods that basically make up the one god. Its difficult to explain, but think of it as a hourglass. In the pinch, that is god. At the bottom that is jesus, god, and holy spirit. But on the upper end, that is Hoaha, Gooha, zizzipo, meleliooo, Goney, Abcdee, and a trillion small men covered in blue fur.

>> ^messenger:

@shinyblurry
Please keep in mind when you answer me that I’m not asking you for the details because it’s an interesting story and I want to know all of the lore like a Star Wars fanboy. I’m asking because -- unlike the majority of people you probably speak with -- I’m giving your faith every benefit of the doubt I reasonably can as a rational person. For me to accept the story, it must hold together. For it to hold, all apparent problems must be resolved without relying on tautology.
My main thrust in this particular comment thread is dealing with the issue that for everything that appears impossible or utterly fantastic to me, when I raise it, you explain it, but with something else equally fantastic (Asserting that God has to punish us for our sins is just as fantastical as asserting that God doesn’t want to punish us), so I’m not left understanding things any better. So, I challenge that new thing, and on it goes until you run out of scripture.
Then, although my questions are as valid as before, you have no real answers. At these times you give quasi-answers: you phrase your answers in the passive voice (“…what was required…”); you answer with a leading question that asserts a comparison without your having to say they're equal (“Wouldn’t you…?”), with a rhetorical question (“Could it be that…?”), or a poor analogy rather than a declarative (The King’s law about adultery, or comparing rapists going to prison with lapsed church-goers (one example of a mortal sin) being sent to Hell); or you criticize how I’m thinking (“…instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.”; and, “use some common sense”). So my question doesn't get answered.
So, as you're talking to a group of mostly logical, scientific-minded sceptics here, why not frame your answers so they make sense to your audience? Ask yourself the next logical sceptical question that springs from the answer you just gave until you arrive at something that really makes sense.


I gave you quite a bit to work with in my replies. The reason I suggested reading the works of theologians is because they discuss the very things you are inquiring about "Why did God do X?", and that very in depth. These are issues which are not entirely concrete because God does not always tell us why He does "X". Some things can be inferred, some things can be logically deduced, and some things are yet a mystery.

>> ^Bruti79:

>> ^shinyblurry:
It's not three different Gods..it's three persons, one God. There is only one God, and that
God is three persons. How can God be three persons at the same time? Perhaps because He is
hyper-dimensional, although I don't think that would be an adequate description in reality. I think though that the concept itself illuminates the potential differences between His existence and ours.

How can god be a person and a god at the same time? How does a person exist as a god and a human at the same time? Removing the possibility of god being three identical clones and using your model. Logic and physics state that:
1)God is three persons
2)These three people are god
3)They are not duplicates of each other
4)Therefore: There are three separate gods
This all would have been summed up better had someone used better grammar.


Here is a dictionary definition of person

per·son (pûrsn)
n.
1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar
a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.
9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" (Shakespeare).

As you can see, Christianity has its own definition. It is referring to, essentially, that everyone in the Godhead shares the same nature or essence, but that they have their own individual personalities. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father but they are both equally God in nature. Not separate Gods, but one God made of three persons. Just like a human father and son are both equally human because they both share that human nature.

The definition of person as it applies to God is that of an individual personality, or rational being. I explained it a bit in the last post..

>> ^Ryjkyj

>> ^shinyblurry:

The definition of person as it applies to God is that of an individual personality, or rational being. I explained it a bit in the last post..
>> ^Ryjkyj


Oh yeah, that was just a long-winded joke about how the holy trinity is the perfect medium for rock/paper/scissors. I always forget that Hamlet said, "brevity is the soul of wit."

>> ^VoodooV:

If he just admitted that he doesn't care about videosift, that he's just here with an agenda to convert us to his religion. Would that be grounds for banning?

No.

He would need to have a pattern of abusive behavior, harassment, etc. As it is, he's just saying things that make a lot of people uncomfortable and/or unhappy. Videosift would be a ghost town if that was an offense.

Using your example, how can you have a father and a son be the same human? They can both be human, but they can not be the same human. The only way that could be possible, if is the two humans were identical twins. Your example seems flawed, you should come up with a better one to explain it.

How do you know they are both equally god? How do you measure a god? How do three individuals make up a god? How does that work? What are the odds that this has happened elsewhere in the world? If it only takes a father, son and holy spirit to make god, how many gods are out there?

>> ^shinyblurry:

As you can see, Christianity has its own definition. It is referring to, essentially, that everyone in the Godhead shares the same nature or essence, but that they have their own individual personalities. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father but they are both equally God in nature. Not separate Gods, but one God made of three persons. Just like a human father and son are both equally human because they both share that human nature.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, June 13th, 2012 4:24pm PDT - promote requested by lurgee.

No. I'm not going to study theology to help you make your case. Where you show you don't understand science or logic, I try and explain it to you. You are the self-proclaimed god expert in the room, and the one who wants us all to believe what you're saying, so when I ask you a fair question about Yahweh, I expect you to either give me an answer, admit you can't explain it, or accept that your original assertion is false.

"Why did God do X" isn't the right question because it relies on the assumption that God exists and in fact did X. A better question is, "Is it reasonable to believe that a god who does X, Y, and Z exists?"

So yes, you gave me a lot to work with in the sense that you wrote a lot, but the way you write makes it very hard to make connected arguments if I have to come back and ask you for clarifications and detail on your fantastic assertions, and you reply either defensively or with more vague and fantastic assertions. Surely you can put yourself in my shoes and anticipate my questions at least a little bit. Unlike most here, I'm actually trying to understand your point of view, so it's worth using words that I'm more likely to accept.>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
Please keep in mind when you answer me that I’m not asking you for the details because it’s an interesting story and I want to know all of the lore like a Star Wars fanboy. I’m asking because -- unlike the majority of people you probably speak with -- I’m giving your faith every benefit of the doubt I reasonably can as a rational person. For me to accept the story, it must hold together. For it to hold, all apparent problems must be resolved without relying on tautology.
My main thrust in this particular comment thread is dealing with the issue that for everything that appears impossible or utterly fantastic to me, when I raise it, you explain it, but with something else equally fantastic (Asserting that God has to punish us for our sins is just as fantastical as asserting that God doesn’t want to punish us), so I’m not left understanding things any better. So, I challenge that new thing, and on it goes until you run out of scripture.
Then, although my questions are as valid as before, you have no real answers. At these times you give quasi-answers: you phrase your answers in the passive voice (“…what was required…”); you answer with a leading question that asserts a comparison without your having to say they're equal (“Wouldn’t you…?”), with a rhetorical question (“Could it be that…?”), or a poor analogy rather than a declarative (The King’s law about adultery, or comparing rapists going to prison with lapsed church-goers (one example of a mortal sin) being sent to Hell); or you criticize how I’m thinking (“…instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.”; and, “use some common sense”). So my question doesn't get answered.
So, as you're talking to a group of mostly logical, scientific-minded sceptics here, why not frame your answers so they make sense to your audience? Ask yourself the next logical sceptical question that springs from the answer you just gave until you arrive at something that really makes sense.

I gave you quite a bit to work with in my replies. The reason I suggested reading the works of theologians is because they discuss the very things you are inquiring about "Why did God do X?", and that very in depth. These are issues which are not entirely concrete because God does not always tell us why He does "X". Some things can be inferred, some things can be logically deduced, and some things are yet a mystery.

@shinyblurry

If you ask why God gave us the concept of right and wrong, could it be that He knew which behaviors were good for us and which were bad? If you ask why God gave us consequences, could it be that God wanted to discourage us from bad behavior?

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

He gave them an honest choice and it was their choice that created sin. What God allowed is the condition to exist where sin was possible.

He created us and our conditions such that 100% of us (or 100% minus two, I suppose) would break those rules. It’s in our nature to break God’s rules. God made both our nature and his rules. God’s fault.

Why did God allow us to sin? Because if He didn't, we would be nothing more than robots.

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?

He must punish all sin...God cannot compromise His integrity to forgive us…

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

[me:]Why? Surely God decided that a sinless person would be required to act as a bridge? Why didn't God just make us closer to begin with? Or why didn't he just come on over himself? Couldn't he? Why did he determine that to disobey his commands would create distance?

[you:]God sent His Son over on His behalf, remember? Fellowship with God is a privilege, and to the extent that we abuse it, that is the extent to which He will remove Himself from it.

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.

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:
http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

Why why why why why why? First, read some of the things I've said and connect the dots.

Because because because because because because your dots don’t connect. When I ask about a connection between two dots, you cite another totally new dot from scripture. When I ask about how to connect that dot, you assert another one with a rhetorical question. When I ask about that dot, you get frustrated and tell me to go study theology. Except within the same comment before you’ve had a chance to answer, I don’t believe I’m asking you the same question again and again. I’m asking you to justify the new information you’re giving me. If it’s frustrating for you, imagine how hard it is for me to accept it.

[me:]And why did they become corrupt? That must have been one of God's rules, that when you sin the first time, you corrupt your DNA (or whatever) for all generations to follow. He created that consequence as much as he created the physical rules of the universe. Why?

[you:]They lost their innocence when they disobeyed God and ate of the fruit. Their nature fundamentally changed as a consequence. Also, death came into the world. The human experience went from paradise to paradise lost, and humans had to fend for themselves. The corruption was a confluence of all of these different factors.

You missed the question. What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

@shinyblurry

(A) Sin is defined as disobedience to Gods commands…(B) The law was given because of sin (C) We created the evil in this world, not Him. (D) He gave us laws to keep us from evil.

Which came first, evil, sin or the law? The law was given “because of sin” (according to B) and “to keep us from evil” (according to D). Both of these mean that evil and sin predate the law because law was the solution to evil and sin. So (1) evil and sin both existed before the law. BUT sin is disobedience of the law (God’s commands) (according to A), and we created evil by disobeying the law (according to C) so sin and evil must have come as a consequence of the law, because to disobey the law was bad. So (2) evil and sin are both a consequence of the law.

Compare:
(1) evil and sin both existed before the law
(2) evil and sin are both a consequence of the law

These two statements are incompatible. So either you don’t know what you’re talking about/are spouting whatever feels right/are a troll, or the system you’re describing is not possible.

So, which is it? Did god create laws for us so we could avoid sin/evil, or did he create the conditions for sin/evil by creating laws in the first place?

The former seems ridiculous, like saying God invented cookie jars to stop us from stealing from them. If stealing from the cookie jars is such an issue, then don't create them in the first place.

The only consistent model is that God himself created sin and evil by creating the laws, because if he hadn't created the laws, there would be no sin or evil in the world. This understanding is consistent with your statement A and in spirit with C, if you understand C to mean, "We created evil by breaking his law".

By your rhetorical suggestion: God created us with free will, then he created laws for us because following them is good for us and he loves us, then he said there would be consequences for not following those laws to encourage us to follow them because he loves us, then he determined that the consequences would be the worst possible thing that could happen, far worse than the real-life consequences for breaking the rules… because he loves us? It doesn’t add up. Don't give me some reductionist "let all rapists go free" argument. There's no way to explain the extreme severity of the consequences for breaking the law if the law itself was created so we would be better off. See?

In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve to be completely dependent on Him for everything. They relied upon God to make their decisions for them, and tell them what good and evil was. However, because He wanted His creatures to be free to love Him, ie just not just forced to obey Him, He gave them one command. That command was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He told them that in the day they ate of it they would surely die.

What lay in the fruit of that tree for Adam and Eve was their own autonomy. The fruit represented an independence from God to decide on their own what is good and evil. Rather than sitting at Gods feet and learning from Him, they would become a law onto themselves through their own judgment. What eating this fruit did was destroy their innocence forever. It ruined the perfect relationship and fellowship they had with God by turning them into rebels who would make choices apart from God.

So, rather than the law being given for the reasons you are saying, it was given to offer them a choice between obedience to God and personal autonomy. The consequences of breaking that law not only changed their nature but brought sin and death into the world. God draws the line at His standard for goodness, which is perfection. It is a zero tolerance policy for rebellion, not only for moral guidance, but to maintain order in His kingdom.

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?

God created not out of need, but out of the abundance of His love. He regards us as His offspring, not His pets.

Act 17:22-31

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

But he forgave us all our sins through the sacrifice of his son. Was that a compromise of his integrity? It seems he does choose to forgive us, at least once every 4000 years or so.

No, because He laid all of our sin on His Son, who bore the punishment we deserve. It is not a compromise of His integrity so long as the sin has been paid for.

Romans 4:25

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification

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.

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.

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

If you want to know more about what it means in the image of God, read this:

http://www.gotquestions.org/image-of-God.html

It told me almost nothing. It says that the definition of "the image of God" is everything that makes us different from other animals, and everything intangible about us, as if that’s what God looks like. It compared naming pets and enjoying music to being God. Weird.

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.

What I’m getting at is the arbitrariness of the consequences and why God would have created such random consequences. Look at them with a critical eye, if you can: Adam and Eve committed one sin, and for that their nature was changed forever, and that of their descendents forever, and they lost paradise. For one sin? You believe that God created such a heavy consequence for the first offence ever committed by innocent people – and people without "knowledge" mind you, because they hadn’t eaten the fruit yet. I cannot.

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.

God got to enjoy his creation for about 45 minutes before it screwed itself up, and from then on we’ve been a disappointment to him. Yet, as you’ve stated elsewhere, God created us for his pleasure. He knew what would happen, so he screwed up. He couldn’t even create himself a pleasing race of pets. Dogs have free will, understand good and bad, and are extremely pleasing as companions. Why couldn’t God create as good for himself as he did for humans? The whole story doesn’t hold water.

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.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

That's a defence mechanism against whatever the opposite of apologia is. Reason, maybe.

Or it's absolutely true.

The only consistent model is that God himself created sin and evil by creating the laws, because if he hadn't created the laws, there would be no sin or evil in the world. This understanding is consistent with your statement A and in spirit with C, if you understand C to mean, "We created evil by breaking his law".

Sorry, I should have clarified this a lot more. When scripture says "the law" what it is reffering to is the Mosaic law that was given at Mt Sinai. This law was given because of sin, and sin was already in the world at that time. This really goes back to the beginning with what I described earlier. What we had in the beginning was not a law, but simply a choice. It was given not to keep us from evil but to give us freedom to choose to obey Gods will. You can't freely obey someone if you don't have a choice not to do it. You can't love someone without the choice not to love. The law came into play after all of this, and that is a whole other discussion.

>> ^messenger:

stuff

@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?

He's *dead Jim!

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by lurgee.