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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

John 12:50

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

John 8:28

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

John 5:19

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

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

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

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

@gorillaman
First, Human sexual relationships in a democratic society should be, at its heart, about consent. That is why RAPE is RAPE and sexual abuse of children is ABUSE. So that rules out animals, although some eat animals we still are expected to treat them humanely. We can't just sexually coerce them.

Second, Marriage usually deals with socially sanctioned semi-permanent relationships for the purposes of assigning responsibilities for having sex with intention to procreate and raising children. Therefore you can't marry an inanimate thing. It also takes two gametes to make a new human. If it took any number of gametes to do that, then we'd be talking about a different situation. But two individuals are directly needed to create a child, and therefor should be the basis of any discussion of marriage. A pair. Our biology is the reason why 'free love' doesn't work. Despite whatever anecdotal evidence given, the large scale practices and ideas of swingers and free love are dead. We are ultimately programmed to serially be looking for ONE other person to aid in the creation of a child. Extra pair copulations (cheating) happen, there is no denying that, but its the exception that makes the rule. People break up and become angry over it. It can kill relationships, it is seen as a betrayal. Now, I believe homosexuality is significant enough (10%-12% of the human population) to be granted the same rights of marriage as heterosexual people, even though currently it has little to with offspring - except for adoption. While the academic debate on whether homosexuality is nature or nurture is far from over (Its probably both). They, being humans, still feel the same biological desire to pair off with someone, just like anyone else.


Now when the time comes that children can be created out of more than two gametes, I'd be willing to reassess. Also, if you want to leave marriage up to other institutions aside from the state - I'm fine with that too, just don't expect things to actually change.

You guys can be smartasses all you want, but it is sad that you're willing to extrapolate conclusions you're posting.

-----

1:30 to 2:11 --- He speaks about the Right to own property privately. He says the UN will not protect those rights.

4:13 to 4:37 -- The UN will not let us practice religion in the same way.

6:29 to end -- Describes lack of need for UN to talk to other countries. The UN is taking our sovereignty by acting as the middle man. 54 representatives vote for a measure to withdraw from the UN.
---------------------

By golly he must have wrote those things about blacks and AIDS!

I'd really like to draw the same conclusions but I really dont know what source material you all are watching... this is far from paranoia

PS: Why are do you mention Lew Rockwell at all, and ignore Murray Rothbard and Eric Dondero?

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say."

Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters

Eric Dondero was a staffer who was fired.
http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies

In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard218.html


You guys are starting to look silly and I'm starting to wonder just how hard you need to try to prove something that you say is so obvious. You know, like the clip of GW Bush giving the camera the middle finger. There has to be an actual slip up, not just your own interpretation of someone elses interpretation of something someone read.

"After 4yrs of never accusing the Doc of actually knowing directly about it, he comes out full bore accusing he checked off on everyone of them, all the while contradicting himself in the same sentence that he only read about 30% and sent notes off to his staff or ghostwriters to complete the newsletters."

Eric Dondero was FIRED by Paul and wants to run against him for office. READ HIS STATEMENT HERE


---------------- more reading

http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies

Dr. Leon Hadar, an Israeli and U.S. citizen who advised the Republican presidential hopeful in 2008, rejects characterization of Paul by another ex-aide as wishing Israel 'did not exist at all.'

---------------------------------------------

Eric Dondero and Murray Rothbard do not represent Ron Paul... but they might have written the newsletters.

Cutting all foreign aid to everyone (read: including israel), and getting our financial system in order .. sounds anti-Semitic to me... if you're willing to twist the definition into nothingness. Let's start doing some homework people.

You can't replace Jesus with Thor..Jesus is a real person. Thor didn't die for your sins, or do things like this:

John 13

It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.

The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.

He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”

Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”

“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”

Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

“Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!”

Jesus answered, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
@shinyblurry, read your post out loud. Replace every instance of the work "jesus" with the word "thor". Still sound like a good argument?

>> ^peggedbea:

I heard and understood what he said. but i am so upset with him that it all sounds like lip service.
i feel like maybe once, years ago, there was an obama with integrity. one who believed the shit he said. i dont think that's the guy we voted into office though. the guy in the office appears to be some kind of corporatist puppet who gives a really good speech every once in a while. whos really good at pretending that "the opposition" just outsmarted him or are too powerful to be beat.

I guess I give him more credit. He's no FDR, but he's as left-wing of a President as we've had since Jimmy Carter.

I'm not as starry-eyed about him as I once was, but I think people on the left have let the corporate media brainwash them a bit too much with the "Obama = fail" meme.

Every victory he's had gets turned into "it was a failure because it should've been a bigger and better victory". Every real failure gets turned into intentional betrayal of principle.

I always get suspicious about only ever hearing one conclusion from people. I mean, for fuck's sake, liberals occasionally found some reason to applaud even Bush. Not so with Obama. Everything he does is apparently wrong, even when he succeeds in implementing some major policy goal. Now it seems that even an expression of sympathy for the Occupy movement in a high-visibility TV interview ticks people off.

I guess I just don't get it. I see a guy who hasn't been the Knight in Shining Armor we all wanted him to be, but he's made quite a lot of forward progress on things like health care reform, repealing DADT, even pulling out of Iraq.

Like I said, he's no FDR, but he's definitely on our side!

I loved this sooo much.

Also I believe that with the finding of the Book of Judas we can safely say that the 30 Pieces of Silver line is no longer correct anyways because Judas betrayed no one.

That's the look of someone who's been betrayed by her cups.

*ban for self-link

Member name: Shadows71 date: 5-23-2011 Jason Boyer
Production company name: Imaginary Shadows Productions
Youtube member name: Imaginaryshadows1 date: 3-31-2011

Previous Vs video produced by Imaginaryshadows Directed by Jason Boyer
http://videosift.com/video/A-Friends-Betrayal

Really good videos--we should hook him up with a member to shill his vids.

It's not stupid, at all, to think this is great policy. Unfortunately however, bobknight33 is spot on here because Obama knows this will never pass such an utterly bought Congress. This is merely Campaign Obama getting to sound progressive for his re-election, knowing that in reality he'll never have to betray his donors.

1. Adam and Eve had a limited knowledge of good and evil by what God had informed them about..they knew enough to know it was wrong to disobey God.

2. God isn't merely good, like He is living up to some sort of standard. He is goodness itself. So when I call God good, I am not judging His character, I am describing it. I call God good because that is what He is, inherently. I am, like you, incapable of judging God, but I can describe Him. It's not a value judgement, it's really the definition of what good is and where it comes from.

>> ^acidSpine:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Sorry acidspine, I missed your question here.
1: When God created Adam and Eve, they were created in a state of innocence. The creation at that point was declared by God to be good. So Adam and Eve enjoyed a fellowship with God without any contamination of evil. However, God had to offer them a choice. If He didn't, they would have no more than puppets. He desired a loving relationship with them, but it would not be love if they had no choice. God wanted them to choose love and trust Him. The only way to give them a choice would be to command something that was not allowed.
So He gave them one rule, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan was allowed to tempt them, saying that God was a liar and that the knowledge of good and evil would be a good thing, and that they would even be equal to God. The knowledge was this; to know the difference between good and evil. Before they gained this knowledge, they relied on God to tell them the difference. They enjoyed a state of innocence because of this. God wished them to be free of evil and to teach them step by step. They decided to betray God, however, and believe the devil..and when they ate of the fruit, the knowledge of evil brought to them fear and shame. Their innocent relationship with God was ruined. Their corruption meant they could no longer enjoy direct fellowship with God, so He cast them out of the garden. They also lost their immortality and began to die. Their sin brought death into the world. Obviously, it wasn't a good thing.
2: Well, first, all human beings are hypocrites. God is perfect and Holy. Ultimate justice could only be decided by a perfect being..all else would be hypocripsy and injustice. So our judgement will always be imperfect and unjust. If God broke His own laws, yes we could point the finger at Him. If He broke even one, it would mean He was imperfect and unqualified to judge us. We however are stained by our sins. It isn't rare to have broken almost every commandment even at a young age. If a murderer pointed the finger at you because he didnt like your behavior, would you take him seriously? God said if we even hate anyone we have committed murder in our hearts. So, pointing the finger at God when we ourselves are stained by sin is fairly ridiculous. We are born into this world with nothing, and life is a gift, but somehow we feel entitled to say God owes us something, as if God is our debtor. With sin on our minds, and corruption in our hearts, we say to God..what right have you to judge us! Well, He has every right..He is sovereign over His creation.
Isaiah 29:15-16
Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?"
You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?
>> ^acidSpine:
Hey shiny, I know you like evangelasing so I have two simple questions for you that shouldn't take much time to answer. Here goes
1. What was the knowledge Adam and Eve supposedly gained by eating the forbidden fruit?
2. As human beings are we capable of judging god's moral character?
As a sweetener, if you answer both questions succinctly I will upvote this vid re-sifting it as it were (unless the recent downvote didn't remove a star point in which case I have nothing to offer)


Thats ok
I'll be breif. Your answer to the first question was that in the bible Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil after eating the fruit. But if they had no knowledge of good and evil how would they know doing the wrong thing was bad?
I'm not really sure that you answered the second question but I will just say if I'm not allowed to judge god as (non-existant) evil then you aren't allowed to judge him as good.
Thanks for the reply

>> ^shinyblurry:

Sorry acidspine, I missed your question here.
1: When God created Adam and Eve, they were created in a state of innocence. The creation at that point was declared by God to be good. So Adam and Eve enjoyed a fellowship with God without any contamination of evil. However, God had to offer them a choice. If He didn't, they would have no more than puppets. He desired a loving relationship with them, but it would not be love if they had no choice. God wanted them to choose love and trust Him. The only way to give them a choice would be to command something that was not allowed.
So He gave them one rule, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan was allowed to tempt them, saying that God was a liar and that the knowledge of good and evil would be a good thing, and that they would even be equal to God. The knowledge was this; to know the difference between good and evil. Before they gained this knowledge, they relied on God to tell them the difference. They enjoyed a state of innocence because of this. God wished them to be free of evil and to teach them step by step. They decided to betray God, however, and believe the devil..and when they ate of the fruit, the knowledge of evil brought to them fear and shame. Their innocent relationship with God was ruined. Their corruption meant they could no longer enjoy direct fellowship with God, so He cast them out of the garden. They also lost their immortality and began to die. Their sin brought death into the world. Obviously, it wasn't a good thing.
2: Well, first, all human beings are hypocrites. God is perfect and Holy. Ultimate justice could only be decided by a perfect being..all else would be hypocripsy and injustice. So our judgement will always be imperfect and unjust. If God broke His own laws, yes we could point the finger at Him. If He broke even one, it would mean He was imperfect and unqualified to judge us. We however are stained by our sins. It isn't rare to have broken almost every commandment even at a young age. If a murderer pointed the finger at you because he didnt like your behavior, would you take him seriously? God said if we even hate anyone we have committed murder in our hearts. So, pointing the finger at God when we ourselves are stained by sin is fairly ridiculous. We are born into this world with nothing, and life is a gift, but somehow we feel entitled to say God owes us something, as if God is our debtor. With sin on our minds, and corruption in our hearts, we say to God..what right have you to judge us! Well, He has every right..He is sovereign over His creation.
Isaiah 29:15-16
Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, "Who sees us? Who will know?"
You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?
>> ^acidSpine:
Hey shiny, I know you like evangelasing so I have two simple questions for you that shouldn't take much time to answer. Here goes
1. What was the knowledge Adam and Eve supposedly gained by eating the forbidden fruit?
2. As human beings are we capable of judging god's moral character?
As a sweetener, if you answer both questions succinctly I will upvote this vid re-sifting it as it were (unless the recent downvote didn't remove a star point in which case I have nothing to offer)



Thats ok

I'll be breif. Your answer to the first question was that in the bible Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil after eating the fruit. But if they had no knowledge of good and evil how would they know doing the wrong thing was bad?
I'm not really sure that you answered the second question but I will just say if I'm not allowed to judge god as (non-existant) evil then you aren't allowed to judge him as good.

Thanks for the reply