|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Confession of a former christian | |||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
quote: I'm reminded of those motivational speakers who talk about how they can "defuse any altercation." They get a person up on stage and challenge them to take up a defiant position while they then use their "techniques" and almost invariably, the person folds in a couple seconds. And I am always incredulous: What could make them be so incapable of sticking up for themselves? The "technique" is always, when it is boiled down, a form of bullying. The language is always pleasant, but it always comes down to the "defuser" assuming the air of the most rational person in the world while simultaneously insinuating that the other person is irrational. Since nobody wants to be irrational, they quickly acquiesce. On a couple of occasions, I have been fortunate enough to be allowed to make public my analysis: "But you just folded like a cheap suit!" The presenter then lets me be the one and when I hold my ground, we see that these "techniques" simply do not work upon anybody who has an ounce of self-esteem and can make his own case. The presenter, then, starts making excuses, "Some situations cannot be resolved." Well, that may be true (some people never seem to be happy unless they're miserable), but the problem was not that the situation couldn't be resolved but rather that the "presenter" was simply attempting to manipulate his interlocutor, not actually reach an agreement. I learned this lesson very early. In junior high school, I had trouble with a bully. Eventually, I finally fought back (kicking his ass in the process) which, of course, was the precise moment when the vice-principal happened to have been paying attention. So, of course, I'm the one hauled into the office with my parents. I explain what has been going on, filling in all the details about what led up to the altercation that the VP had not seen and all the previous instances that he didn't know about. The VP accepts this (the other student was known to be a bully), but he still wants to impose punishment upon me. I point out to the VP that it is unacceptable for me to just sit there and take it, that my continued complaints to the teachers had resulted in absolutely no change, I am owed an education without harrassment and while I understand the problems of fighting, I am not going to be ashamed because the school officials fell down on the job. The VP, seeing that he is not able to cow me, then tries to play the insult card by saying that I need to "calm down" and "stop being so emotional." I point out to him that I have not raised my voice, that I have simply pointed out the facts, including the fact that the solution he is suggesting has proven to be completely unworthy, and that a different course needs to be taken. He then tries to play the patronizing card by asking, "And what would you have me do?" He expects a 12-year-old to be incapable of responding to this: After all, he is the reasonable one and I am the unreasonable one. But, I don't fold: "Suspend him. If that doesn't solve it, expel him." This floors him: "I can't do that." I have one of my "(*blink!*)" moments and respond, "Of course you can. You're the vice-principal. It is your job to maintain good order and discipline in the school, is it not? If you have a student whom you know is causing trouble, why is it that I have to suffer at his hands simply because you are unwilling to take action?" At that point, he could no longer deal with me. He turned to my parents and simply declaimed his solution: I would be removed from my classes with the bully. This is precisely the attitude you are describing: Morality comes from authority and questioning that authority through the requesting of justification is not to be tolerated, especially when it becomes clear that the justification is bogus. Note, this doesn't necessarily lead to atheism. It simply means that dogmatically authoritarian forms of theism can be difficult to swallow for those who have managed to learn how to stick up for themselves. It doesn't surprise me that a person who comes to this conclusion but has nothing but dogmatic theism around him, would seek to find his own way without god. But, others may think that the problem is not the concept of god but rather the humans who claim to speak for god. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
quote: You mean the one that blighted the fig tree for having the temerity to not produce figs out of season? That's what a model Christian does? Kills things in hissy fits?
quote: Be mindful that the Jews were warned that their way was the way of suffering because the world would reject, persecute, and kill them wherever fundamentalist Christianity is in the majority. That's been the case ever since. So if Islam is bad for what it did to the Christians, what does that make Christianity for what it has done to the Jews? Does the phrase "blood libel" mean anything to you?
quote: BZZZZT! Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, Buzsaw. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has! Well, Bob, Buzsaw has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, Buzsaw gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations. But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni®, the San Francisco Treat. You didn't really think that the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you?
quote: And the other two-thirds of the globe can make the exact same claim...except they come to a very different conclusion regarding god. Why should you anybody follow your claims when most people think you're full of it?
quote: And when you wind up in eternal torment in hell, what will you do then? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: Of course, with an omnipotent god, we run into the problem of "whence cometh evil"? If we allow that god can, we are left to wonder why he doesn't. If it's because he doesn't care, why call him god? If it's because he does, then where does evil come from? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano responds to me:
quote: But we just established that god is omnipotent. Therefore, there is no reason for the existence of beings that act "contrary to god's will/desire/pleasure" and yet are still "capable of choosing."
quote: Huh? When god does what god considers evil, it isn't evil anymore? God is omnipotent, so whence cometh evil? God could get rid of it, so why doesn't he?
quote: Who knows? The point is that if god is omnipotent, then god could easily create free-willed beings that don't contradict him. Since he is responsible for his creation, why does he allow evil when he can stop it? Are you saying evil is good?
quote: Who said anything about robots? Didn't we just establish that god is omnipotent? If so, then there is no reason why free-willed beings that were created by god must defy god. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano responds to me:
quote: That means god wants evil. How is that good?
quote: An omnipotent god can do anything, including creating a world without evil and populated by free-willed beings. Why don't we have such a world? Does god want evil? How is that good?
quote: Then why does an omnipotent god allow evil? If he doesn't care, then why call him god? If he does, then why is there evil? Does god want evil? How is that good?
quote: So why didn't god do that? Adam and Eve certainly weren't stupid. They were merely innocent (we've had this argument before.)
quote: So since god created everything, then god must have created evil. How is that good?
quote: When you can achieve the same result without anybody getting hurt, being omnipotent, how is that good? Why does god want evil? How is that good? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano responds to me:
quote: Quote mine. Let's follow the entire conversation thread, shall we?
Rrhain writes: But we just established that god is omnipotent. Therefore, there is no reason for the existence of beings that act "contrary to god's will/desire/pleasure" and yet are still "capable of choosing." iano writes: The reason they exist is because God created them in such a way that they would be able to choose both for and against his will. Rrhain writes: That means god wants evil. Thus, we're not talking about evil in and of itself. We're talking about "the existence of beings that act 'contrary to god's will/desire/pleasure.'" In other words, there are evil people. Why would god allow evil people? This would necessarily mean that god wants evil. How is that good?
quote: And I responded to it that it doesn't actually answer the question but rather, in fact, leads to the conclusion that god wants evil. An omnipotent god, being capable of doing anything, can create a world without evil and populated by free-willed beings. Since we do not live in such a world, this necessarily means that god wants evil (assuming an omnipotent god). How is that good?
quote: It's not a question of can. It's a question of why. Of course an omnipotent god "can" create evil. But how can the creation of evil be good when it is possible, being omnipotent, to achieve the same results without any evil at all?
quote: Then the devil is just as much god. Does this make you a Satanist?
quote: But an omnipotent god can create a world without evil and populated with free-willed beings that do choose, but just so happen to never choose evil. Since we do not live in such a world, this clearly means god wants evil. How can that be good?
quote: Not an answer. Let's try again, shall we? An omnipotent god can create a world without evil and populated with free-willed beings that do choose, but just so happen to never choose evil. Since we do not live in such a world, this clearly means god wants evil. How can that be good?
quote: And already shown to be insufficient in response. Let's try again, shall we? An omnipotent god can create a world without evil and populated with free-willed beings that do choose, but just so happen to never choose evil. Since we do not live in such a world, this clearly means god wants evil. How can that be good?
quote: But we just established that god is omnipotent. Therefore, there is no reason for the existence of beings that act "contrary to god's will/desire/pleasure" and yet are still "capable of choosing." Wait...Didn't I just say that? Why, yes! Yes, I did! Back in Message 56! Congratulations, iano, you've just completed your circular argument. Let's try again, shall we? An omnipotent god can create a world without evil and populated with free-willed beings that do choose, but just so happen to never choose evil. Since we do not live in such a world, this clearly means god wants evil. How can that be good?
quote: Then because god can create a world without evil and populated with free-willed beings that do choose, but just so happen to never choose evil, then the only reason that there are free-willed beings that do choose but do choose to act against god's will is because god wills it. This clearly means that god wants evil. How can that be good?
quote: Huh? You keep forgetting that god is omnipotent. There is no reason that god cannot create free-willed beings that decide all on their own what kind of beings they were going to finally be...and just so happen to never choose to act against god's will. God can do anything, so this is not a problem. Since god clearly did not do this, and if god cannot act against his own will, then god clearly has willed for there to be evil. How can that be good?
quote: No. No logical paradoxes. Just because you have a choice doesn't mean all possible options will be chosen. I wrote a program in college that did exactly that: Free choice, but it never seemed to choose the wrong one. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano responds to me:
quote: Yes, we were. From your own post, Message 55:
iano writes: If evil is defined as "thoughts/actions/deeds arising from beings rendered capable of choosing, which are contrary to Gods will/desire/pleasure" then the question "where evil comes from" is answered. When you figure out what your own argument is, please let us know.
quote: But in choosing, they become evil. However, an omnipotent god can create beings that will never choose evil, even though they have free choice to do so. Since we do not live in such a universe, and since by your words god cannot act against his will, then it necessarily is the case that god wants people who will choose evil. Therefore, god wants evil. How is that good?
quote: One way would be to show them the error of their ways. Grant them perfect understanding (there's that tree of knowledge thing) and even though they could choose it, they never will. And what's wrong with limiting the choice? Evil is never good, yes? So if you can make it so that evil will not happen, how is that not preferable to a system that allows evil? We're back to the Mhing vase example. If you put your delicate vase on a rickety pedestal, it really doesn't matter how many times you tell a toddler, "Don't touch." When the vase comes crashing down and shatters, everybody knows to blame you for being stupid enough to put a delicate item in the reach of a toddler, who is innocent and doesn't know any better.
quote: Ahem. I directly said I wasn't. If you're not going to read the posts to which you are responding, you should get used to being wrong an awful lot. Too, it will make conversation quite difficult.
quote: But god created beings who are evil (through their own choice). Since it is possible to create a being that has free will and yet will never choose evil, and since god can never act against his will, the only outcome I can see is that god wishes there to be evil (even if he can't make it happen directly, himself). How is that good?
quote: Incorrect. It is avoided above. Let's try again, shall we? An omnipotent god can create a world without evil and populated with free-willed beings that do choose, but just so happen to never choose evil. Since we do not live in such a world, this clearly means god wants evil. How can that be good?
quote: But as you said:
We're not talking about the existance of beings that act contrary to Gods will. We're talking about beings who were created so as to be able to chose. So there is no reason for there to be any beings who will choose evil. Since there are, and god cannot act outside his will, then it necessarily follows that god wants there to be beings who will choose evil and thus, god wants evil. How can that be good? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano responds to me:
quote: Huh? What are you talking about. I'm talking about the existence of choice. That means you could choose any of a myriad of options (rarely is there only two.) And "skew"? You mean having a strong sense of morality eliminates the ability to make a free choice? I guess that means god has no free will.
quote: Huh? I have the choice of throwing my computer out the window. I'm not going to do it. It isn't a foregone conclusion. I simply choose not to do so because it
quote: That doesn't answer the question. The point is that god could have created a universe populated with beings that have free will and yet never commit evil. We do not live in such a universe. You admit that god deliberately did this, since god cannot act against his will, and thus god must have wanted evil in the world. How is that good?
quote: Huh? How does creating beings who can choose but choose good not an example of beings who "get to (effectively) choose whether to have a relationship with god or not for all eternity"? If god creates beings who will choose evil, then god must want evil. How is that good?
quote: Of course. But as we have both said, just because you can, that doesn't mean you do. There is no reason why the universe can't be populated with beings that have free will to choose and do not choose evil. Doesn't god have the choice? If he can do it, why can't we? Or are you saying god has no choice?
quote: So you admit god wants evil. If it doesn't have to be (and it doesn't), if the choice god made resulted in a word that has evil as a necessity, then it is only because god wanted evil. How is that good?
quote: How many times must you be told before you remember? There is no forcing. There is only choice. But it just so happens that people never choose evil. The ability to choose evil does not require that evil ever get chosen. If god can do it, why can't we? Or are you saying god has no choice?
quote: There's this "balance" thing again. What is this, Fox? You seem to have fallen for the error of the middle ground. That is, given a choice between two extremes, the "right answer" necessarily lies somewhere in the middle. That isn't true. Sometimes the answer is one of the extremes (evolution, f'rinstance). But, you're presuming Adam and Eve were capable of making a choice. They weren't. They were innocent. They hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge yet and thus were absolutely incapable of choosing evil since they didn't know what evil was.
quote: But Eve was not conscious of what the prohibition meant. She hadn't eaten from the tree yet. Yeah, god did say...so what? Why is the word of god given any weight? She doesn't know anything about good and evil because she's innocent: She hasn't eaten from the tree. So when the snake tells her the truth (and it was the truth for god was, indeed, lying to her), how is she supposed to make a choice? Choice requires being aware of things like consequences. Otherwise, you're simply flying blind. Eve, being innocent, having not eaten from the tree yet, is constitutionally incapable of making a choice. That's the entire point behind being "innocent."
quote: They hadn't eaten from the tree, yet. How could they possibly be culpable? After all, they were sinning up a storm beforehand and nobody seemed to mind. We all understand this: People who don't know what they're doing aren't being evil. Oh, the results may be tragic, but tragedy isn't malfeasance. But, that's an old argument that has no place here. Back to the issue at hand. God didn't have to put the tree of knowledge in the garden. Thus, since he created beings who would choose evil, he must have wanted it. How can that be good?
quote: Why not? All choices are skewed. Every single one of them. There is never such a thing as "all things being equal." That's why people make the choices that they do: Something about the situation favors one option over all the others. That's the reason why people have such a hard time when there are too many choices: Nothing is clearly pointing the way to go.
quote: Why? Why does weighing consequences mean the choice is no longer free? People do things they know they shouldn't do all the time. I'm up way past when I know I should have gone to bed replying to you. I could have chosen to do this tomorrow, but I've decided to damn the consequences. [...only to have the site go down on me as I'm trying to post...is that a hint?] quote: Such instances are rare in the extreme and when they do happen, people aren't making a choice. They're guessing. Guessing is not a choice. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano responds to bluegenes:
quote: BZZZZT! Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, iano. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has! Well, Bob, iano has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, iano gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations. But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni®, the San Francisco Treat. You didn't really think that the god that truly exists was the Christian one, did you? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano writes:
quote: Why not? It's his creation. Is he not responsible for it? He throws thinking beings into the world after teaching them nothing and thinks there won't be any consequences?
quote: Incorrect. If god is capable but unwilling, then god is malevolent. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Perdition writes:
quote: Indeed. In magic, we call this "forcing." You certainly have the appearance of having a free choice of which card to pick out of the pack, but you really don't. If somebody knows what you are going to do, 100%, without any possibility for error, then how can you do any differently? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
iano responds to me:
quote: I most certainly do. Choice is the process of considering the consequences of my actions and then making a determination as to which one would best achieve the goals I am seeking. If I have no ability to consider consequences, then I am not making a choice. I am simply guessing.
quote: What is this "balance" you're talking about. There is never "balance." The only reason you can possibly make a choice is because things are out of balance. If everything were perfectly equal, then there would be no way to make a choice. Instead, you'd have to guess and guessing is not choosing.
quote: I've shown you at least one way in which it can be done. Since it can be done, why didn't god do it? Why did god choose a method that you admit necessarily requires evil? How is that good?
quote: I never said it did. The problem is not that evil is a possibility. It's that evil is a result. Since there are ways to generate the universe such that evil will never be a result even though it is a possibility, why would god choose a system such that evil is necessarily a result? How can that be good?
quote: So if god can manage to have choice but never choose evil, then why can't we? Why would god create a system that necessarily results in evil? How can that be good? And more importantly, how is that not a very contradiction of what was just established? If god cannot choose evil, how can he choose to create a system that necessarily results in evil? Does god not have a choice?
quote: But such a scenario doesn't result in a choice but rather a guess. If I cannot weigh the consequences and determine that one path is more favorable than another, then I am incapable of making a choice. Any path I follow is not the result of choosing but rather of guessing. A guess is not a choice.
quote: All choices are skewed. That's what makes them choices.
quote: Huh? Sin isn't about morality? And you still haven't answered the question: How were they supposed to choose between the lie of god and the truth of the serpent when they were constitutionally incapable of making a choice, being innocent and not having eaten from the tree of knowledge? Remember, you were the one who defined evil as "any action/thought that is against Gods will." Since sin is defined as "doing evil," then the act of eating from the tree of knowledge was necessarily a "moral choice." But they couldn't make a moral choice. They were innocent as they hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge yet. Remember, they were sinning up a storm before they ate from the tree and nobody seemed to mind. Remember, the very first thing they do once they eat from the tree is not panic over having eaten from the tree. After all, that is the only thing they have ever been told about god's will (that we know of): "Don't eat from the tree." So why is it they immediately panic over something else?
quote: Adam and Eve were always going to die. That's what the tree of life was for.
quote: Yes, she did. The only way to understand a prohibition is to understand good and evil. Since she hadn't eaten from the tree, she didn't understand good and evil. Thus, she was constitutionally incapable of understanding god's prohibition. How on earth is someone who does not know what good is supposed to know that god is good and should be followed? You're assuming what you're trying to prove. How were Adam and Eve supposed to know that they should follow god's lie rather than the serpent's truth?
quote: Incorrect. It's a moral one. "Or else what"? By your definition, evil is "any action/thought that is against Gods will." Since sin is "doing evil" and necessarily an act of morality, then when god tells you, "Don't do that," that's a moral prohibition, not a consequential one. Besides, god's answer to "Or else what?" was a lie.
quote: Now I'm confused. When those consequences are "good" and "evil," that makes it a moral choice. But you said moral choices aren't consequential choices. I'm confused. At any rate, Adam and Eve were incapable of making such choices. They were innocent. They hadn't eaten from the tree of knowledge and thus were constitutionally incapable of choosing between good and evil, not knowing what good and evil were.
quote: Indeed, but the consequences they got were the ones the serpent told them. God lied to them. But that doesn't answer the question: How were they supposed to distinguish between god's lie and the serpent's truth when they were constitutionally incapable of understanding good and evil having not eaten from the tree?
quote: That's not a choice. That's a guess.
quote: Incorrect. It is the very essence of choosing. Once cannot make a choice without weighing consequences. If you don't, you're not choosing. You're guessing.
quote: If you can, then they are clearly not balanced. Something shifted you. If they were truly balanced, then there would be no reason to choose one over the other. Instead, you just guess. When Monty Hall presents you with the three doors, there is no reason to choose the one you did. And that's because you didn't choose. You guessed.
quote: But how was Eve supposed to weigh the consequences when that requires knowing good and evil and she didn't know what good and evil were?
quote: That "act of will" is called "guessing." And the exact same thing is true with the serpent's statement. Why one and not the other? That's because it isn't choosing. It's guessing. God and the serpent are saying contradictory things. They can't both be true. Eve has no way to choose because she doesn't know what good and evil are as she hasn't yet eaten from the tree. We're back to one of my questions that never gets answered: Beetaratagang or clerendipity, iano? One is good, one is evil. Make your choice. If you respond to nothing else, this is the question I want you to answer: Beetaratagang or clerendipity? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
quote: You're forgetting about the Iliad and the Odyssey. Greek used the alphabet for numbers, too. Congratulations, IamJoseph. You've just declared your loyalty to Zeus. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
quote: Incorrect. The very first amendment to the Constitution is a direct violation of the OT law: Freedom of religion. In fact, the very first words of the Constitution are a direct violation of the OT law: We the People. In fact, the Constitution directly contradicts the Bible: Article VI: ...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. The only mentions of religion made in the Constitution are to expressly deny it. Where did you get this idea that the Constitution is based upon OT law?
quote: Incorrect. In fact, the OT directly commands human sacrifice. Have you forgotten Isaac? Have you forgotten Jephthah who entreats god to help him smite the Ammonites and in return, he will sacrifice the first person who comes out of his doors:
Judges 11:31: Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. God, of course, takes him up on the offer and delivers the Ammonites unto Jephthah. And who should greet him when he comes home? His daughter. Whom he sacrificed to god. Have you forgotten Josiah?
1 Kings 13:1 And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense. 13:2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee. Have you forgotten the direct commands of god?
Joshua 7:15 And it shall be, that he that is taken with the accursed thing shall be burnt with fire, he and all that he hath: because he hath transgressed the covenant of the LORD, and because he hath wrought folly in Israel. Deuteronomy 13:12 If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, 13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; 13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; 13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. 13:16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
IamJoseph responds to me:
quote: Incorrect. The very first commandment: I am the lord, your god. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. But the First Amendment directly contradicts that: You can have whatever god you want. And I think you are confused about what "the law" is. "The law" is the word of god telling Jews how to behave. That is, by definition, the equivalency of church and state. If your law comes from god, if your law tells you how to engage in religious activities, then it can never be claimed to be "separation."
quote: (*chuckle*) Except for those that Jesus and Paul came up with. The law from the OT says you're supposed to be circumcised. Paul said you don't have to be.
quote:quote: Irrelevant. If human sacrifice was never supposed to happen, then Abraham would never have taken Isaac up the mountain. The fact that it was stopped doesn't change the fact that god demanded it of Abraham and he obeyed.
quote: What part of Jephthah sacrificing his own daughter to god makes us conclude it wasn't human sacrifice? Jephtah's daughter wasn't human?
quote: Incorrect. Jephthah did exactly what was required: Pray to god and sacrifice to god. That's what Cain and Abel were doing. That's why Cain killed his brother: God didn't like Cain's sacrifice. Jephthah prayed to god for victory and promised to sacrifice the first thing to come out of his house. It turned out to be his daughter. So he did what god demanded and sacrificed her.
quote: Incorrect. It refers to the people.
quote: Incorrect. The law provides very specific animal sacrifices for the expiation of sin. Leviticus 3 tells us how to carry out the animal sacrifices depending upon the type of animal being sacrificed. Not specific enough?
Leviticus 4:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 4:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them: 4:3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering. 4:4 And he shall bring the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD; and shall lay his hand upon the bullock's head, and kill the bullock before the LORD. 4:13 And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty; 4:14 When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation. 4:15 And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD. 4:22 When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; 4:23 Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish: 4:24 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD: it is a sin offering. 4:27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty; 4:28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 4:29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. Leviticus 5 is all about sin offerings, starting with the choice of a ewe, lamb, or kid. If you can't get one of those, then two turtledoves or two young pigeons can be substituted. And if you can't get that, then you can use flour. Leviticus 6 is also about sin offerings, for which the sacrifice is of a ram. Leviticus 7 is about trespass offerings. Kill any random animal and burn it. And just in case it isn't hammered home enough, we get the wonderful description of Moses doing exactly what god told him to do:
8:14 And he brought the bullock for the sin offering: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the bullock for the sin offering. 8:15 And he slew it; and Moses took the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about with his finger, and purified the altar, and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar, and sanctified it, to make reconciliation upon it. So if Moses is killing animals for sin offerings, one wonders why you think it is forbidden.
quote: Incorrect. Not one jot, not one tittle of the law shall be changed till all be fulfilled. Hmm...perhaps that's why you're so cranky: The world did end and this is hell. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024