View Single Post
Old 04-15-2008, 03:16 PM   #47
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jvstice
Well we were given minds, and the capacity to learn how to develop cures for our own betterment over the long run. It sounds callous to put it like that though.
That's fine however it does not address the question. If some people experience "miraculous" cures and those "miraculous" cures are the direct intervention of god, then why does god not intervene to replace missing limbs? Your points are good, however they have absolutely nothing to do with the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jvstice
I've never claimed omnibenevolence...
And I never said that *you* did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jvstice
...and the Deuteronomy quote actually shows God showing that he plays favorites, loving some intensely and despising others with no regard to any merit and no person being intrinsically worse than others. We're told by Jesus not to play favorites that way though.
And I agree. However, since modern judeo-christian theology tends to argue that god is omnibenevolent, these points tend to create a problem for that myth. Within the scope of this belief, the question is legitimate and your response is rather unrelated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jvstice
ditto.
Are we at match point yet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jvstice
When someone attempts to quote another individual, the biases of the person doing the quoting sometimes creep in, even though the basic substance of the message is that of the originator of the message. Little things, like different emphases might end up having a bigger role. So it's actually something of a hybrid.
Sorry, this point is rather important, so I'm not going to be able let you squirm on this one: Is the bible the word of god or the word of man? Please read John 1:1 before responding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jvstice
It's an arguement for not using a tool for more than it's purpose. The purpose of the Bible is to illustrate what relationships between human beings and God look like, and to serve as a call to faith. When you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I wouldn't have thought that you and the fundamentalists would have that much in common.
"not using a tool for more than it's purpose". "The purpose of the bible is to illustrate what relationship human being and god look like and to serve as a call to faith". First, let's please recognize that this is *your* interpretation. It's not bad, or wrong, or evil, in fact in many ways I'm sure it's fine, however it is still the equivalent of an opinion (e.g. not a fact). Second, if the purpose of the bible is to lay out "the ground rules" set forth by our perfect creator, then why does it contain so much bad information (as pointed out by the author). I'm afraid that you can't have it both ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jvstice
Well, that wouldn't be my priorities, but I wouldn't presume to speak for someone else without hearing the why from them first.
So if god had a very good reason for allowing/promoting slavery then why isn't the practice commonly accepted today? You see how this kinda fluffy thinking doesn't hold up to scrutiny?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jvstice
Of course, having an axe to grind and only opening a debate because you have an emotional investment in how the opposing side answers, and how you can paint them, often leads a person being dishonest with themselves.
So people don't need to be intellectually honest or take responsibility for their own thinking? Sorry, not buying that one. Participation is not mandatory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jvstice
Even the bible makes pretty clear that there's no methodology to dividing a loaf of bread in such a way to feed hundreds or thousands of people. Elisha prays and feeds a 200 man army, where Jesus feeds 4000 people following to hear him preach one time, and 5000 another. I don't see how this is supposed to leave behind some evidence of a universal law that you could then put into effect and feed the world's hungry.

By their own admission, these were special cases, and not some undiscovered application of E = mc2 energy to mass conversion.
And once more the author's point strikes home. I really do get that you, personally, don't feel the need for their to be evidence, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the question: why isn't there any?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jvstice
I'm on an entirely different wavelength then you and don't see what you're getting at. We're told have faith, or don't bother at all, because it's impossible to please God otherwise. Why act in a way that makes the one thing you're calling on people to do irrelevant?
Fair enough.

Have you seen the movie No Country For Old Men? There's a scene where the antagonist is in a gas station purchasing Corn Nuts or something of the like. The cashier says something that makes him upset, so he pulls out a quarter, flips it, and then insists that the cashier call heads or tails. The scene is long and I won't try to recreate all the dialog for you, but the point that the audience gets but the cashier doesn't is that if the cashier call it wrong, the antagonist is going to kill him.

The fact that he is going to kill him has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the cashier want to die, wants to call either heads or tails, or even cares about calling it correctly. Similarly, whether *you* feel a physical appearance is "owed" to you or not is completely irrelevant to the fact that he has not. Saying "I don't feel that Jesus owes me a cameo" is the equivalent of the cashier in the scene babbling on about why he's being asked to call it: it doesn't change reality/answer the question.

To the second part of your point, Muslims will tell you that if you don't accept Islam then you won't please god either. Is it similarly wise to blindly accept that calling as well? You have just as much evidence for their version of god and the christian one, so what criteria are you using for your decision. Also, are you prepared to accept the consequences of making the wrong choice? Might want to think about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jvstice
I can live with that. And they're probably relieved at not having to answer for me as well.
That's probably true, but once again, we've completely skirted anything that might pass for an answer. What we do have is an elaborate mental gymnastics plan for how we're going to get out of having to answer the question, which is the point the author was trying to address with his video.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jvstice
Considering that to be Christian under the declining roman empire was a death sentence if you were caught, and secrecy was a major part, I'd think that disuasion and pushing casually interested people away was probably a bigger factor initially. What you're talking about might well have entered into it later once there was a centralized church body focused on missionaryism at any cost. Much the same as the sainting of pagan gods was done during this time too.
Interesting conjecture. I don't think I've ever heard anyone propose that the eucharist was concieved as an attempt to "separate the men from the boys" before. Too bad Darth InSidious doesn't roam these parts; I'm sure he'd have a field day with that one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jvstice
In the eyes of the law, that would probably be the best way to see that no one's liberties are crushed by the government whose job is to stay a neutral party other than to enforce that everyone does get their liberties.

But just because someone gives you the ideal makings of a garden, wouldn't mean that the person who puts theirs together from scratch can't have a worthwhile one. It also doesn't relieve the person given the garden the responsibility of upkeeping it themselves, to reap the benefits regardless of their actual competence to do so.
This doesn't address the point: if christian marriage is somehow superior to some other flavor of marriage or even civil union, then why isn't this demonstrated in divorce rates? The question isn't going to change no matter how much we try to avoid it or put it off with responses that aren't related.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,