Animal Sacrifices in the Bible?

[Medicine*Woman]

Excuse the typo's, I've been drinking. I'll ammend as many as I can.. sec

*************
M*W: Well, come on over SL, we'll drink a few!

 

[Warrior61]

1) England.

Again my childish thoughts and curiosities come out. How do you feel about soccer, or futbol? Just interested, not homo by any means. Just curious because soccer isn’t the most exciting thing here in the States, especially they Glorious South. Any way I think it’s the best sport in the world, and since my opinion lends authority to lots of things feel free to quote me on that.

2) Well, technically to 'bugger' is to penetrate someones butt. I suppose the easiest way to view it is like "fuck all", but not quite as rude, (although bugger in itself can be). It's even used affectionately, (as dictionary.com examples: 'cute little bugger').

I’m glad we cleared that up. Thanks.

I'm curious then.. Clearly we did not create ourselves to do bad, to be nasty, or to get turned on by so many strange things from violence to squishing insects, ("crush freaks"). In saying, and given the claim that we were created in the image of god - would these have come as part of that 'image'?

No. To do bad though was our fault.

We're still having difficulty establishing that Adam and Eve could even make a moral choice. While we certainly can, my "moral choice" does not make me do bad, but it would certainly make me refrain from worshipping a being that has killed humans. The strange thing is, my love for humans would then ultimately end up with me burning. It's seemingly a no win situation for me. I either abandon my own morals and worship a mass man murderer, or abide by those morals and burn. I would choose the latter, my morals are not for sale.

Ok. No sense in arguing that. The only thing is I don’t see how you have to give up your morals.

It would be both. From a biblical perspective the action of those two has seemingly damned many people, but that does not make them responsible for it - given that the 'choice' was not an educated one. For some reason I can't quite fathom, the snake was allowed to deceive two people that had no knowledge of good or evil into eating a fruit which would give them that knowledge. If they hadn't have eaten it they wouldn't have knowledge of good or evil and it would only be a matter of time before they made a wrong decision, (stuck their fingers in the plug socket as it were).

True. The underlining inference was that you say it was satan’s fault, thus taking responsibility off of Adam and Eve. Also I haven’t brought this up yet so here we go. Satan deceived and intention was to deceive. No objections to the previous statement. Why would satan have to deceive? Is that not an indication of an understanding of right and wrong? You can know right and wrong without knowing Good and Evil. Again this helps when you understand what Good and Evil is.

Certainly.

So then they made a moral decision without knowledge of Good and Evil.

Is that then to state that animals, (having no souls), don't have: a life, emotions, a mind or moral choice? While we could probably debate a couple of them, surely you'd have a problem trying to debate the first one? To my knowledge, animals are alive - although completely lacking a soul apparently.

No. Like I said I say animals could have souls. I am not ruling that out. Remember the I was wrongs.

Why? It's just me I guess but I fail to see the value. Why give life if you intend for nothing more than them to obey and worship you? It seems a tad.. self centered. An automaton is one thing, you can create a robot and get it to serve your every whim and desire.. But if you give that robot emotion, moral choice, self awareness, a "life" - then expecting it to worship and obey everything you say is really quite off-putting, imho - and to threaten annihilation if it doesn't comply seems something only someone without morals of their own would even consider.

Well again, your whole life isn’t singing and studying. Look at what was asked of them. It wasn’t that much.

1) To all intents and purposes, jesus was not human.

Yes He was. He was different, but still human.

2) jesus is credited by christians as being the only being in the history of the universe to be completely sinless. As a result it does seem inevitable that the rest of us do and will sin, and is the 'norm' for humans.

Ok. I will grant you that, however we do have the urge to do right. For example no one likes to be criticized because no one wants to be wrong. We also have to understand that we don’t have to do evil, yet it seems so attractive to us.

3) The list of what is a sin is without doubt an extremely long one. It depends entirely on individual christians/theists but I have heard of everything being a sin from masturbation to watching Pokemon. If what constitutes a sin is modifiable by humans then we'll never get anywhere. The list established by god also is not suitable.. As an example:

I understand that sin can vary between culture but the one thing that is consistent with all sin, and a common thread, is intent.

- god clearly indicates that sleeping with a man of the same sex is a sin. He clearly indicates that sleeping with a family member is a sin. Nowhere does he actually indicate that sleeping with children is a sin, (many priests have made the most of this blunder).

Yes but that would be natural law don’t you think? I mean there is something seriously wrong with saying that, also there are laws on virgins. I will check into that.

- god clearly states that anyone who strikes a man and kills him must be stoned to death. Most of us actually completely ignore god on this matter. Our morals have seemingly, by fact of that, outgrown gods ideas of what is or isn't to be done. It can surely be quite scary wondering if we're all destined to hell because we didn't comply with gods laws, (of which this is just one of many).

That is if the man was found guilty, however there is room for mercy and grace. That is also consistent.

So who has the say as to what we must consider as moral, what we must accept as immoral? god clearly cannot be the answer unless he updates his book or is due to damn mankind because we're not stoning prostitutes/naughty kids and murderers anymore. Humans also cannot have the final say on what is or isn't moral because then we don't know if god concurs.. Does god really care about Pokemon? It's unlikely, but surely something we need to know the answer to if we're ever to get closer to leading a life without sin?

Well again sin can vary between cultures. For instance. “Bloody” is a cuss word in England. Here in the good ole’ U S of A it doesn’t make a bloody difference if I bloody say “Bloody.” The majority of saying it would be intent. Am I out to offend someone or to be disobedient? I can say it here and no one is offended if I say it there they get upset. There are ones that don’t change like murder. Murder doesn’t change. Also I believe we have all we need to decide what is Good and Evil.

I have given two examples: one where god has 'forgotten' to include a sin that he really should have, and the other an example of a god order than mankind no longer listen to - which would surely make us all sinners that little bit more?

I hope I explained it clearly. If not just let me know.

I actually treat my daughter as an equal - as an adult. I leave the decisions up to her and find she has until now always done the right thing.

We've got to also understand that children are humans too and have feelings and emotions. Saying "no" doesn't specifically mean they're being 'bad', and it's probably worth finding out their feelings on the matter. Why would your child not want to go the dentist? To you when they say "no" they're being naughty - because they're disobeying.. But there is valid reason for them to disobey: Dentists suck.

If my daughter were to refuse to do something I would certainly spend my time trying to find out why as opposed to smacking her ass. When did god ever ask anyone to their face why they are disobeying instead of just turning them into a pillar of salt, drowning them, or sulphur bombing them?

Surely the decent thing would be for him to come sit in my living room and ask me why I don't believe in him, why I had sex before marriage, why I smoke etc etc.

But you no doubt get upset when you child does disobey. Anyway God already knows without having to ask.

Love and jealousy are linked together, but the latter is never helpful to anything, instead it is generally detrimental to that relationship. While I can and will accept that these things are all part of man, (and perhaps to agree with your argument we can find a time when they are not specifically bad things), I would still be called upon to question a "perfect" "all loving" being having these emotions.

Never? I think jealousy is safe until a certain extent. It isn’t always bad. Also how do you question God because He has emotions?

Inflicting pain on a lesser being is always wrong.

But in your view there are no lesser beings so how can you make that statement? But understanding what you are saying, at least I think I do, is killing an animal, or lesser being, not painful? Is that wrong? Oh yea you are going to eat what you kill.

Sorry, I don't know what you're asking. From a biblical perspective, god has emotions. That's not evidence of anything.

Could be. Is to me.

Aye. It would seem the idea is that gods, (of any kind), require the deaths of animals to appease them. In this instance they would be right.. their god did require animal deaths, the cow most likely did not.

Obviously a manmade cow can’t demand anything, so obviously it had to come from man.

It's debateable, but I would have to question the flood. Everything and everyone died. I absolutely refuse to accept that every single being, (which invariably included 1 month old children), being slaughtered is justifiable and not murder. What exactly were these 1 month olds doing? Smoking pot and raping women?

No the 1 months were sinful. They however are in Heaven along with your son. Children do not understand Good and Evil. To a certain age, which I believe is different for everybody, a person can’t make a choice because they don’t understand it.

The "spirit" never died - as we agree. The "physical" death only lasted for a couple of days - and yet has apparently resolved all human problems, (as long as you're a believer). I just can't grasp why this 3 day death has solved anything.

Well it satisfied God’s wrath and He had to resurrect.

So what about the several billion he's not with?

That’s their decision.

I already explained. Further to which, 'love' is a chemical reaction, little more.. I fail to see any valid reason that I would force myself into some version of 'love' for a being on the basis that it created the universe. I'll certainly say "thanks", but love? Maybe I'm different than most, I dunno.. but I don't see the creation of the universe as being anything remarkable for an omnipotent being and see no just cause to 'love' it for doing so. I don't 'love' the builders that made my house on the basis that they made my house.

I'm also put off a bit by the fact that cancer exists, flies exist - which puke on my food and make my kids ill, and I'm surprised that this being would go to the trouble of creating a catfish that is in the habit of swimming up the end of a persons penis and latching on. To me it seems pointless, what do I know?

Seriously, we have to look at both sides. This being that expects me to love it can certainly get a thanks for creating humans, but then surely falls down a notch for creating mosquitos and bladder worms, pubic lice and ticks? Male pattern baldness also sucks ass as does the need to trim my damn face hair and nails every week.. Can't he have included a 'stop' button for hair/nail growth when he made us? It's a complete bloody waste of my time.

See, I'll look at both sides.. For the former, imo, a thanks is sufficient - it doesn't lead me to "love".

How would you feel if your child didn’t love you? I can tell you how it makes sense to me but I wouldn’t know what to say to change your mind. To address the creation of unpleasant creatures who knows to what extent they would have been without the fall? Anyway you really shouldn’t be pissed off at God you should be pissed off at evolution? Which I don’t see can actually allow disease or sickness either but hey maybe you can explain it.

Or of course we could look at Exodus where god states that:

"you are to give over to the LORD the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the LORD... This is why I sacrifice to the LORD the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.'"

Perhaps then he killed my son, (because my son apparently belongs to him).

However, my son did not sin. He was entirely sinless. Your argument has little value. Of course this is probably where it is claimed that it was due to my sin that he died, (god does indeed state several times that he punishes the kids for the sins of their parents etc). Perhaps then it wasn't my sins but my fathers sins, or my grandathers sins that led to the death of my child, (god says he'll do this). In either case my child was innocent. That is murder.

If I sinned whack me, if my father sinned whack him, if my grandfather sinned whack him. That's acceptable, the killing of an innocent is not.

My argument has little value? My only explanation is natural consequences of sin. There is nothing I could say to bring your son back or heal you completely. I wish I could but I can’t. To address the sacrifice of the firstborn, the word “sacrifice” doesn’t always mean kill.

You have not justified why god has a right to.

He is Justice. If the government says not to J-walk or you will be hit with a stick, whose job is it to enforce? God laid the law and enforces it. You sin you die. You sin you will be punished.

I'd be all for it if it was apparent that people could be rehabilitated. It isn't apparent and there's the problem. It is in some peoples nature to kill, like it is in a lions nature to kill. I wouldn't have the lion walking round the neighbourhood for the same reason that I wouldn't have the murderer doing the same.

From Twain's 'Thou shalt not kill':

A lion doesn’t have an idea of morality, a person does. Notice the lion in this instance kills for food. Slade kills for the pure joy of killing. Thou shalt not kill is actually thou shalt not murder. Just so you know there is a difference. Also a butterfly has no need to kill, and can’t purposely kill, to my knowledge. Anyway this just shows diversity it in no way points out that everything humans do is out of instinct.

He goes on to say:

He goes on to say that it isn’t God’s fault. It is instinct for an animal to eat and kill. It is not instinct for a man to murder. God didn’t give him the instinct to murder. There is a difference. Also we can control our instinct. I don’t think this is valid, but that probably just means I didn’t understand it. So if you don’t think I did please explain.

Ok so in our scenario you have a person that isn't breathing. If you do not perform the action of breathing into them/pumping the chest etc, they will be permanently dead. What is the soul doing right now and how does breathing in to them help keep the soul in place? Why does the soul leave if you don't breathe into them?

The soul is there. Breathing prevents the body from not functioning which would cause the soul to leave. The soul leaves because that’s how it was designed.

Ok, I can't really debate the latter for now - if they or we live forever it is not evidenced and relies on the word of a book. I will for now accept that and move on. The other two are debateble, but I shall leave it for now.

Ok.

Elephants are not really the 'get scared' type.

Prove this.

Out of interest, do humans have instinct and, if they are operating under instinct, are they then not guilty of a crime?

Please give a scenario. Also realize that right and wrong in a government is not always Good and Evil. Humans do have instinct. To answer your question. Maybe.

That would not make us superior if the god in question is a nincompoop. It would simply make us the image of a nincompoop.

That would be true, but if God was a nincompoop I wouldn’t call Him God.

You could tell that baby the consequences, but without him having knowledge of good or bad, of whether being electricuted is a bad thing or not, it's meaningless. The same applies to Adam and Eve. While told not to, they had no understanding of good or evil and thus have no valid reason to give a shit what they were told not to do.

They had an understanding of the right and wrong thing to do. Also Good is obeying God and Evil is disobeying God. They knew the right thing to do was to obey and the wrong thing was to disobey. Now they didn’t associate it with Good and Evil until after they had sinned.

Aye, my apologies. That's the bad side of drinking I guess.

Thank you. I really appreciate that. Also is there a good side to drinking? LoL I don’t drink so I can use that for an excuse of my ignorance like you can.

The knowledge of good and evil is an asbolute must in order to make any moral decision. Obeying or disobeying come under the guise of moral decisions and, without knowledge of good or evil, obeying or disobeying is of no worth or relevance. Is obeying a good thing? (You know the answer to that, they didn't).

I think I explained this above. If not feel free to say. Obeying is the right thing. That should help.

Is dying a good thing or a bad thing? How would they know without that knowledge? Why would they listen to an order given to them without knowledge of whether that order is a good one or not?

They knew it was a bad thing. I really don’t see how I need to debate that but I know we have different view on obviousness.

And have knowledge of good and evil and thus can distinguish that obeying is a good thing. Without knowledge of good or evil I wouldn't honestly give a shit either way.

Right and wrong, Good and Evil. Put that in your mind. K. Go!

And annihilates them, plagues them, curses them, firebombs them etc etc because they don't want to? What kind of a choice is that?

My wife was online ordering some tickets. She looked at me and said; "Do you want to come to the opera with me?" I replied that I didn't. She then took out a knife and stuck it in my chest. With my dying breath I said; "whydya f****** ask in the first place then?"

If you offer a choice, you have to accept the choice that is made. Getting all irate because you gave someone a choice and they chose something you didn't want them to is downright petty.

That isn’t petty it’s justice. Anyway I would agree with you about not going to the opera.

The argument comes down to definitions. You could say the word "god" would define such a being as being the wisest of all beings, but in actuality a god could be a complete blithering idiot and nothing like our human definition of what a god is or isn't.

Then He wouldn’t be God. How can I blithering idiot create what He created?

I still disagree. How is he without fault?

Justice. Trying to change your view.

There is then no valid reason not to do it. At the very least he would get many more recruits - those that are simply unsure as an example.

While I would like for Him to do it I would still say the ones who are going to believe will believe either way.

The notion is foreign to me.

How so? It doesn’t make sense?

In my opinion a life of blind acceptance is worse than a life of ass kissing.

Blind acceptance? Do you think I would just accept something with out questioning it? I mean we have only known each other for a bit but honestly tell me the truth. What is your view of me?

I fail to see the purpose. I'm more intrigued by the biblical fact that these people gave up on their own god so easily in preference of a golden cow.

Well their worshipping was sacrificing. Just pointing out my explanation of animal sacrifices. By the way did I explain it to you?

Be nice? Stop with the floods and plagues, stop with the curses and constant demands, accept people's choices without having to kill them for it.

So He can’t then. That wouldn’t change us. Is there another way for Him to create “free” humans and angels?

Again, I assume she does.

You did say you were human and needed love though? I am confused.

Knowledge changes over time, yes.

I’ll agree. But not all knowledge changes, and it mostly just expands.

Pfiesteria is some serious shit.

This is where I just believe you. That was funny.

However, let's argue it briefly from a biblical perspective..

Exodus 7:22 states that the Egyptian magicians managed to do exactly the same thing. These people, for a time, could actually perform the actions of god - which included turning all the water to blood. That's some serious talent right there is it not?

You'd rather accept that a bunch of Egyptian magicians could do such a thing while denying the plausibility of that which has been observed?

I don’t know what they did, but I guarantee you that couldn’t do all of what God did. I can’t disagree that they didn’t do it but I am just saying I still believe He changed the nile into blood.

How? Let it be said that people have made such claims before and generally cite that; "the existence of jerusalem shows that god must exist" or some similar verbal hocum. They are not acceptable arguments.

How? I will look some stuff up.

How so?

First, science is us looking at the world and how we explain it. I can explain it along with scripture. For instance. Trees grow fruit. What does Genesis say about that topic?

Being a human, yeah.. most likely. What I was saying that is if there wasn't a "need", it would be inconsequential whether anyone loved you or not.

But there is a need, so you don’t know for sure if your wife loves you so how are you sure you need it?

Purely out of interest, I have never killed an animal - save for occasional accidental squashing of a snail or some such thing. When that happens I do feel incredibly bad for something else having to lose its life - whether you regard that life as worthless or not. So, I get into a tussle with a big old croc.. I have a genetic imperative to ensure self survival - I don't specifically think I'm better than the croc anymore than he thinks hes better than me, but when it comes down to the crunch I don't want to die and so would do what it takes at the behest of anything else. That would invariably include god if he came down for a tussle. It's not to say I would specifically consider myself better than him, but genetic imperative is a powerful thing. I would, out of instinct and nature, fight to ensure my survival. It doesn't really equate to me being more worthy of life.

Ok. I got you, I just think that humans have more superior to animals. I think when you kill something to eat it that it is evident that you think that you are more deserving. I will leave this for now on the account I don’t see it necessary to argue about this, and it doesn’t hurt my argument or yours so. Cease fire.

I'd clearly be pissed. I have an emotional attachment to my wife. Killing my wife would invariably make me upset. It doesn't equate to her being more deserving of life.

In your eyes it does though doesn’t it. Not in the whole view but in your view you would see your wife as more deserving.

There is nothing written in the bible to suggest they loved god. Furthermore, they actually disobeyed. Are you saying they did so because they didn't love him? Again though, the act of obeying or disobeying is of no relevance to a being that cannot comprehend whether obeying is a good thing or not.

Disobedience doesn’t mean they didn’t love. Also they walked with God and had a relationship with Him. I think there is evidence of love. Sometimes disobedience can indicate someone doesn’t have love.

You're having a problem grasping that whether they obey or disobey is of no relevance unless they can understand which of those two things is good and which is bad - which they couldn't. There was only one order given and that order was disobeyed. It wasn't because they hated god or thought he was being a jackass but because the order itself is utterly meaningless when you do not have the ability to discern the value in listening to it.

Then why would the snake feel the need to deceive?

Aye, sue me.

LoL I can’t. Plus I probably wouldn’t get much out of the ordeal. I settle for the obviousness of your error.

Yeah, and they didn't have any knowledge of good or evil. god attests to that fact. It's simply undeniable, and as a consequence of that they would be in no position to know whether obeying was good or eating a fruit was bad. Being told not to is irrelevant if they cannot comprehend whether obeying that order is a good thing.

I understand what you are saying, but do realize I know they didn’t have knowledge of good and evil but they had and idea of what to do and what not to do. In retrospect we label that good and evil. They messed up and now knew that Evil was disobedience and the wrong thing to do and Good was obedience and the right thing to do.

Regards,

Thanks. Also I just noticed your previous thread. How is your school issue going?

Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><

 

[SnakeLord]

How do you feel about soccer

I hate football I watch the World Cup, sure.. from a patriotic standpoint as opposed to a care about football standpoint. Sport really aint my thing in general.

To do bad though was our fault.

I don't believe it is. It always comes to mind when a theist brings up his "choose to have faith" speech. The simple fact of the matter is that it's not a choice. Here, let's test something very quickly:

Right now I want you to choose to believe in leprechauns. Convince your mind, (or your soul), that leprechauns are real and do magic.

You'll probably discover right about now that it is an impossibility. You cannot force your mind to believe, (choose), anything. I am not an atheist because of choice, I am an atheist because I am - because my brain demands evidence etc before it accepts something as real. I have no say in that whatsoever.

We can certainly 'try' to be something we are not. a closet homosexual can deny what he is for his entire life, can hide behind a different 'mask' all he likes.. The fact remains that he's still homosexual - and that is not a "choice", that's just the way he is, his nature, his person.

But tell me really, what have you "chosen"? You didn't choose to like the music you like, the food you like, etc etc.

Now, you say people choose to do bad - It's not that they've sat down, weighed up all the alternatives and openly decided to be bad - it's that their nature makes such a choice an inevitability. That is what Twain's story was getting at - Slade couldn't help but kill.. there was no choice there on his part, he was just following his nature.

In the same way as Slade, It's not my choice to be atheist - it is an inevitability based upon my nature which is given to me by a gazillion different life experiences.

The only thing is I don’t see how you have to give up your morals.

I suppose this all ties in with what I have mentioned above. I have not made a personal choice that, for instance, stealing is bad. There is law - which most of us will obide by to prevent us from being locked in a cell, but my morals do not really consider theft to be such a bad thing, (this is merely an example). A better example perhaps would be that it is morally acceptable in certain parts of the world to stone women to death if they have been unfaithful, or indeed to cut hands off of thieves. America still believes it is morally acceptable to execute prisoners - where England has long since decided that it isn't. What I deem morally acceptable or not is not a 'choice', it is who I am based upon these same life experiences, (for instance I could use as an argument that due to the death of my son I consider abortion immoral). I did not make a personal choice to believe abortion is a bad thing, it's just life experience leads me to an inevitable conclusion that it is - [p.s this too is just an example, not specifically my moral beliefs concerning abortion]).

In order for me to worship a being that has done acts against my morals means I would need to abandon my sense of morals, (not my choice), just so I can agree and condone with the actions of this being. I cannot condone, regardless to who the being is, the death of children. I cannot concur with a being that has ordered humans to slaughter women, children and animals - regardless to their apparently justified reasons. "If your son is naughty take him to town and stone him to death" [paraphrased]. There is no way I could ever condone such a thing - to do so would be a traitor to myself, to 'sell my morals'. Theists often bring Pascal into a debate somewhere, (Pascals argument), and to me that is pure weakness of character. To sell oneself so easily through fear, to abandon your underlying principles just so you can reap some benefit. I find it truly sickening.

The underlining inference was that you say it was satan’s fault, thus taking responsibility off of Adam and Eve.

No. It's gods fault. He made the snake, made the tree, put the snake next to the tree, gave the snake a deceptive personality, put Adam and Eve near the tree while giving them no understanding of good or evil, then allowed the snake to deceive them and then punished them all for doing that which he must have planned to have happened in order for him to be able to sacrifice himself to try and show that he loves humans.

Why would satan have to deceive?

It was in his nature to do so, or it was part of the master plan that he would. Either way god is liable.

Is that not an indication of an understanding of right and wrong?

The snake had no need of the fruit, for some reason the humans did.

You can know right and wrong without knowing Good and Evil.

How so?

So then they made a moral decision without knowledge of Good and Evil.

They made.. a decision. A decision can be made without moral implications but a decision require morals cannot be made without the understanding of what is good and what isn't.

Like I said I say animals could have souls.

In revelations you see a lion sitting down with a lamb - all good happy chums. Would this perhaps indicate that animals have souls? I am curious though, what does a soul look like? Will these lions, lambs and humans all be semi-transparent or something or will we be rejoined with the physical?

Look at what was asked of them. It wasn’t that much.

I disagree, depending on when exactly we are talking about. They were made to walk through a desert for decades eating nothing but one type of food. This is why they even begged to be back in slavery again - because their god was that much of an asshole. They actually even tried asking for some proper food - and moses points out to god that god is taking all the meat for himself when he doesn't even need it. god relents and allows the people to eat meat, (quail), which storm the land by the millions. The people gather the quail and sit down to eat... Then as the meat is inbetween their teeth, as they sit down to eat their first decent meal in a long damn time.. god annihilates the people.

I've heard the term "all loving" before, but let it be stated for the record: All-loving does not apply to a being that annihilates thousands of people because... they asked for food.

That's "not much"?

Yes He was. He was different, but still human.

Quick clarification... jesus was a human?

I understand that sin can vary between culture but the one thing that is consistent with all sin, and a common thread, is intent.

Intent heh.. Like god "intending" to kill every human in existence? That kind of intent?

Yes but that would be natural law don’t you think?

Looking at history... absolutely not.

I mean there is something seriously wrong with saying that, also there are laws on virgins.

Kindly don't say you're not allowed to have sex with virgins... That would leave our entire species in a seriously dire predicament.

That is if the man was found guilty, however there is room for mercy and grace.

Not according to the OT. No mercy, just sharp rocks. What worries me is that that's god talking. Commanding people to kill. He even commands *his* people to war others - to annihilate all - to take the women for themselves yada yada. is discrimination is evident. He protected his people against the Egyptians, and even slaughtered the Egyptians. This is based upon the biblical fact that the Egyptians had the Jews as slaves. However, this very same god that annihilates the Egyptians for keeping Jews as slaves allows the Jews to keep slaves of their own.

Well again sin can vary between cultures.

So who has the final say? If god.. does he not need to update his list? If all we are really supposed to care about are the ten commandments and Leviticus then a lot of shit will be happening.

“Bloody” is a cuss word in England.

Not really, no

But you no doubt get upset when you child does disobey.

It's all dependant upon circumstance. What we both need to recognise is that kids are not us, they are not adults and thus do not share the understanding of life that we do. To understand them we would need to go back to our childhood and remember why we did the things we did. Likewise for them to understand us, they would need to be adults. One day they will be.. and then the cycle will repeat. Their kids will be kids, they'll be adults, they wont remember what being a kid is.. It's misunderstanding, that's all.

Considering I never order my child to do anything, she has nothing to actually disobey and thus I cannot say I am in a position to really answer.

Anyway God already knows without having to ask.

But we don't. No disrespect, but what 'god knows' is utterly meaningless to us. We are the ones that "need" to know, and thus it is upon him to provide what we need. If he doesn't it's his choice, but then there's bugger all we can do about his choices - it changes nothing for us. We still don't know what offends him or why, (we have a small list).

Never? I think jealousy is safe until a certain extent.

From an evolution standpoint, the simple fact that it exists seems to imply some value to humanity - although I cannot personally think of one. However, by the token that god is a "perfect" being, jealousy seems to do nothing but undermine that claim.

Also how do you question God because He has emotions?

Emotions are dangerous at best. While I suppose a Star Trek Vulcan doesn't seem ultimately appealing, it would seem more in-tune with a god. By having emotions one is invariably lead to bias. I'll explain this later if you ask.

But in your view there are no lesser beings so how can you make that statement?

Ability. As explained a few posts ago there are things we can do better and things they can do better. As a collective we certainly have far more ability to kill, (and for no reason). In this regard most animals, (if any), can actually compete. I do not consider animals as "lesser" in their right to life, but lesser in certain regards to their abilities.

is killing an animal, or lesser being, not painful? Is that wrong? Oh yea you are going to eat what you kill.

While having been given incisors by god means I am somewhat compelled to eat animals, (although I can live on veg), you will find that people are trying damn hard to find "humane" ways of killing animals. Generally speaking, long gone are the days of slicing the neck and swinging from a tree. Nowadays we try to reduce any suffering on the part of animals. That surely is a part of morals, a part of being human.

Obviously a manmade cow can’t demand anything

Why not? All you need is faith and it can. Now do you perhaps see the worthlessness of faith?

No the 1 months were sinful.

They were sinful? How?

Well it satisfied God’s wrath and He had to resurrect.

So it comes down to the anger of god and nothing else? This being, so pissed off with everything he made, has to appease himself by killing himself and thinks that's an answer to any of us? Sure, it probably beats zapping Jews and Egyptians, but all it has resolved is his own hatred, his own need for violence and destruction, his own imperfection. Ours, (being made in his image), is still alive and going strong. That we are like that is understandable, that a god could be is scary.

That’s their decision.

That's a fallacy. I did not 'choose' to not believe in gods, it is an inevitability based upon my life circumstances. You are the sum of your experiences. They can not just "choose" to believe in gods anymore than you can just "choose" to believe in leprechauns. It is not too much to ask surely that a god presents himself? Apparently he has to you, so why not everyone else? It isn't their choice, it's purely his.

To address the creation of unpleasant creatures who knows to what extent they would have been without the fall?

So, if you were to claim that these diseases were not present before the fall, then the only viable conclusion is that god put them here to annihilate humans. Thing is, while some might be acceptable, (we can largely combat many illnesses now), I can't for the life of me why he would make a very rare amount of children allergic to sunlight, or the rare case of kids that can die if they so much as smile. Or progeria.. what the hell is that all about?

Anyway you really shouldn’t be pissed off at God you should be pissed off at evolution? Which I don’t see can actually allow disease or sickness either but hey maybe you can explain it.

We're talking from a 'god exists' perspective. If you would like to we can look at it from a purely evolutionary standpoint but that would serve little purpose in a place of religious debate.

My only explanation is natural consequences of sin.

Those consequences decided by god - and thus not "natural".

He is Justice. If the government says not to J-walk or you will be hit with a stick, whose job is it to enforce? God laid the law and enforces it. You sin you die. You sin you will be punished.

If you are gay in Saudi Arabia the law means you can be stoned to death. There are people that carry out that stoning. It doesn't make it right. My own sense of morals could never ever condone the creation of a disease like progeria - whether created by a god or a human.

It is instinct for an animal to eat and kill. It is not instinct for a man to murder.

I would tend to disagree. Nowadays we have the technology to focus that instinct in a manner that does not actually harm others. Think back just a short time to the Romans and gladiators. Nowadays the most popular computer games all revolve around the murder of others. The most popular cartoons revolve around violence, (from Tom and Jerry to Pokemon).

God didn’t give him the instinct to murder. There is a difference.

Then who created it? The man certainly didn't. Of course the answer would probably lie in us being created in the image of a being that has killed more than any other being in the universe.

Also we can control our instinct.

As the story explains, it can be starved to a certain point. A lion doesn't go and kill for the mere sake of it, it does so only when it wants to eat. In the same token we do not generally go around killing people, but when it comes down to it we are all capable and all most probably would. You go home to find a man raping your wife and child. In most circumstances instinct would have taken over and the man would be dead. The difference is that Slade's instinct could not be controlled that long.

Breathing prevents the body from not functioning which would cause the soul to leave.

So.. the soul doesn't control the body?

Please give a scenario.

You go home and find a man raping your wife and child. Instinctively you try to protect your family and end up killing the criminal. It would most likely come down to manslaughter as opposed to murder, but you yourself have mentioned "intent" and it's probable to assume that the intent at that moment would be to kill the man.

but if God was a nincompoop I wouldn’t call Him God.

You have no place to ascertain that this thing you call god is not a nincompoop and you call it god anyway on a personal assumption that it isn't.

They had an understanding of the right and wrong thing to do.

No they didn't.

Also Good is obeying God and Evil is disobeying God.

They had no knowledge of good or evil, and this obeying or disobeying is irrelevant and inconsequential.

Also is there a good side to drinking?

Certainly.

LoL I don’t drink so I can use that for an excuse of my ignorance like you can.

It was an accident based upon the level of alcohol in my blood. It was not ignorance.

They knew it was a bad thing.

No they did not. You would need to support the claim, and you can't.

That isn’t petty it’s justice.

Nonsense. My wife could claim it "justice" when she stabs me - it doesn't make it justified. A being giving itself the right to slaughter humans does not make that decision "just", it simply means there's nobody powerful enough to challenge it.

How can I blithering idiot create what He created?

Why would anyone with a modicum of intelligence bother creating this universe just to test whos worthy of a second life, (when he already knows), and intends to create another universe where nobody dies, there's no sickness yada yada yada? Why not just skip this nonsense and just create the second life, the perfect life that wont anger him so much?

Why create a gazillion planets that do bugger all? Why create pubic lice?

I once saw a blithering idiot try to make a car. He did manage to make a car in the end but there were so many pointless elements to it that hinted at the fact that he was an idiot. There was a wheel on the roof, an exhaust pipe facing inside the car, and a locking mechanism that started the windscreen wipers.

Justice. Trying to change your view.

Again it is only "justice" because he says so and there is nobody powerful enough to challenge him. That does not make it "just". There is nobody powerful enough to challenge the slave leader in this camp I mentioned earlier. They are all starving, weak people that cannot challenge the slave leader. He slaughters them whenever he feels like it and calls it justice. With nobody to challenge him, it will always be justified.

While I would like for Him to do it I would still say the ones who are going to believe will believe either way.

Given my statements on "choice", I would sort of agree with you. However, disagreement comes along when you throw experience into the mix. With experience, knowledge and "belief" tend to change, (not a personal choice). You and I can drivel off our nonsense for the rest of eternity and change nothing - except in those who are prone to that change but just need a gentle nudge in the direction they were going anyway. You're still left with millions of people that cannot just force their minds to believe in leprechauns. Seeing a leprechaun would change all that in an instant.

Blind acceptance? Do you think I would just accept something with out questioning it?

Yes. I actually went to church on Tuesday and saw it in full effect. You can "pretend" to question, but will always settle on an answer in favour of that which you accept, (this is a general you).

So He can’t then. That wouldn’t change us. Is there another way for Him to create “free” humans and angels?

Once again: Be nice. We're still "free", just less pointless deaths.

You did say you were human and needed love though? I am confused.

Sure I guess, although a crate of beer would generally suffice.

I don’t know what they did, but I guarantee you that couldn’t do all of what God did. I can’t disagree that they didn’t do it but I am just saying I still believe He changed the nile into blood.

And pfiesteria isn't an option because?

How? I will look some stuff up.

The existence of places etc is not valid evidence for the existence of characters. The hometown of Gilgamesh exists, that does not lend evidence to the existence of the demi-god known as Gilgamesh, his fights with ogres and half man/scorpions etc.

But there is a need, so you don’t know for sure if your wife loves you so how are you sure you need it?

Typically when one does not get what one needs, one ends up going apeshit. This doesn't worry me so much with humans because it's a part of our nature.. It certainly worries me when it comes to god beings.

In your eyes it does though doesn’t it. Not in the whole view but in your view you would see your wife as more deserving.

My bias would be meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I think I deserve to win the lottery more than anyone else.. The thought that I am doesn't make it so.

Then why would the snake feel the need to deceive?

Because he was created with that nature? It's unlikely he created it himself.

 

[Alex44]

I saw this thread just browsing google....and honestly I've seen so many of the most idiotic reasoning and answers from Christians in this thread I had to register and post even if it's just to get banned.

First off let me say god is an impossibility. Your god can't be perfect if I can think of a more perfect god. Thats a basic athiest concept that mostly everyone agrees with. Now if your god is perfect he must be able to see into the future, if he can't then I can think of a god that can and hence your god isnt perfect. So assuming he can see into the future that means he is always right without fail, now if that is the case our actions are predetermined and cant be changed. If our actions cant be changed we can't have free will, and without free will we can't make choices. Without choices how can god judge us and send us to heaven or hell?

There are thousands of other reasons but I don't feel like touching on them for people with the IQ of a rock...nono...a christian rock.

I'll go over every single idiotic quote in this thread one by one...or at least the most idiotic ones I'll cover.

spidergoat
We have large brains, culture, language.

1) How do you define a large brain? If it's by size which I doubt thats what you mean, then the size of your brain has nothing to do with intelligence level. If it's by the ability to hold and store information, then there are animals whose mental capacity exceeds ours. Just because we have a skill set that allowed us to develope in a certain way doesnt mean that we are smarter.

2) Animals do have culture although not in the same sense as ours. How do you explain that two of the same animals in different parts of the world act in a different way? Animals are made of the same materiel (Atoms etc..) as humans. So I ask you what seperates us? The soul can't exist, if something can't be measured scientifically it doesnt exist. You can't just make up things to suit your needs and arguement (kind of strayed off topic here sorry)

3) They do have a language, it's not the same as ours but with a mixture of voice tones and body language they get their point across. Is a mute any less of a person?

The Logistics of Noah's ark make sense

Yes....the gathering of animals, building of a giant ark, gathering of food for all these animals, holding these animals on the ship in a way that they would not hurt anyone intentionally or otherwise, cleaning up the piss and shit they made, taking care of all these animals on a daily basis, making sure they didnt breed on the ship thus causing more mouths to feed. Now Im aware you can say they didnt need much food because 40 days isnt truely that long. However if they werent fed or fed very little they would be in such poor condition they wouldnt have lasted in the new world. Also how did these animals so readily adapt to the enviornment and spread so far across the world? In many cases being found only in one area?

he innocent must die for the guilty because the guilty are not worthy enough

I'm not even touching this quote....just stand back and admire it's idiocy. I'll make one comment actually....'Lets kill all the good guys! Yeah that will teach those bad guys not to behave!' In fact I suggest a reverse jail system in while we send the innocent to jail.


Honestly Im sick of this already...Im trying not to vomit on my computer from some of the nonsense that has been posted here. I could go on and on with examples of horrible logic being used...but I'd rather not. You're not worth my time at all. How you can argue for something (god) that has no basis in reality, using idea's that have no base in reality whatsoever. Keep on believing. Honestly if it were my choice there would be no religion....I'd even go as far as to say I would wish you all dead for the better of the world. As long as you're around the world will continue to be a piece of shit.

You can ban me now...I'm done. It's my job to point out your idiocy, I really have no need to hear what you have to say. Peace Out.

 

[SkinWalker]

Other than the single phrase I removed, I see no problem with your post. You've echoed the opinion of the majority that posts at this forum. I'd much rather remove a single phrase and have you return to post again some day (if you can stomach it ) than ban you. If you don't mind.

But when you say "your" as in the last sentence above, I hope you aren't applying it to everyone.

 

[Photizo]

How can God enjoy smelling the burning flesh of an animal when He has no physical nose?

Psalm 94:9...

"Does He who implanted the ear not hear? Does He who formed the eye not see?"

 

[SkinWalker]

Please tell me you aren't using a contradictory book of mythology to prove anything. The anthropomorphic characteristics of gods is nothing new to humanity. Even the bull was worshiped in Mesopotamia after people found anthropomorphic qualities in it. Inanna/Ishtar was created from the anthropomorphic belief that it took a woman to give birth to the natural world and the world in general. It took the Bull to impregnate her.

Animal sacrifices, however, are for people more than they are for gods. Sacrifices in the Greek religions required that the people bring the best of their herds and stock to the temple for sacrifice, where the priestly class took the best cuts and distributed what was left to the citizenry. This was a simple redistribution of wealth. Much the same was probably true in the Levant and Mesopotamia. It also allowed the priestly class (social elites), to maintain their power and prestige and the non-priestly classes could vie for status by showing they were pious since they are willing to sacrifice the best they have to offer.

Surely the disgusting myth of Abraham offering up his son Isaac was such a demonstration of pseudo-piety. The myth sets the highest standard for cult followers, so they are motivated to bring only their best cattle, sheep, lambs, etc.

Sacrifice also involved giving other material wealth to the temple (grain, precious metals, lapis lazuli, etc.). Most people think of slaying an animal (or even a virgin) when they think of cult sacrifices, but the concept means parting with something of value, which is handed over to the priestly class or cult leaders. Burnt sacrifices probably only involved burning the bits of carcass that weren't destined to be consumed (tripe, bones, blood, etc.) or tanned. An efficient method of getting rid of the waste.

 

[Nutter]

Please tell me you aren't using a contradictory book of mythology to prove anything.

Don't worry, he's not.

 

[Photizo]

Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Please tell me you aren't using a contradictory book of mythology to prove anything.

Don't worry, he's not.

Well done, Nutter

 

[SkinWalker]

Well said? So you're saying Psalm 94:9 isn't in that book of mythology?