Disobedience has consequences.

[Skavau]

“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

I think you need to do some reading. http://www.christianforums.com/thre...around-one-thing.7769222/page-7#post-64053085

If you honestly think were not being watched for what our political and religious beliefs are you need to take a look.

Indefinite Detention, as ugly as it is does not mean anyone will be prosecuted for their political or religious beliefs.

In any case I assume in this context that you, personally, object to such a concept?

 

[Skavau]

But other than that... why do you believe there should be no consequences?

You're asking me why I object to thought-crime?

Do you support people being prosecuted for what they think?

 

[LostMarbels]

You're asking me why I object to thought-crime?

Do you support people being prosecuted for what they think?

When did I bring up thought crimes?

Indefinite Detention, as ugly as it is does not mean anyone will be prosecuted for their political or religious beliefs.

In any case I assume in this context that you, personally, object to such a concept?

And again, different matter same point. Have you taken the time and effort to actual read the thousands of pages of legislation? If not... where do you get your stance on the subject? Nightly news? Your favorite celebrities?

I do not understand how someone can base a belief, yet alone an opinion off of second hand info.

Yes, I object, and I understand I may die for that objection.

You're asking me why I object to thought-crime?

Do you support people being prosecuted for what they think?

Again, When did I bring up thought crimes?

 

[Skavau]

When did I bring up thought crimes?

When you asked me why there should not be consequences for how people believe. You said, and I quote:

"And to as why I'm on this line of conversation is because unbelief can be disobedience. Even an act of out right defiance and refusal. And to the OP disobedience-has-consequences. So some forms of disbelief can have consequences."

If you believe that it is appropriate to punish someone for what they think, or institute a place for people who think a certain way then you are in favour of thought-crime.

And again, different matter same point. Have you taken the time and effort to actual read the thousands of pages of legislation? If not... where do you get your stance on the subject? Nightly news? Your favorite celebrities?

Same point? I don't support indefinite detention. I know that some governments take harsh stances over foreign nationals simply suspect of terrorist activties or leakers who release sensitive information about the government or the military. That they do that does not mean they are criminalising any particular thought.

"Your favourite celebrities?"

If you have specific legislation in the US (or any country) that gives the government the right to arrest someone for what they think I'll condemn it. I know it happens in specific EU countries as pertains to holocaust denial and I reject that also.

 

[Davian]

Do you believe there is statements in the bible that contradict reality, and do you believe there are statements in the bible that do not contradict reality? Can you please give some explicit description so I am not forced to guess what you have in mind?

For the former, I have only my impressions of what I have been presented here - an all-powerful, all-knowing "God" that walked and talked and loses people in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, repopulated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat riding a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing. For the latter, some cities are named that exist in reality.

It is more logical than the alternative: to think that those who believe in Him, trusted Him, spoke of their experiences with Him are lying or delusional. Especially since I am one of those people. If you think there is another explanation than dishonesty or mistake, please mention it because I probably have not thought of it yet.

I asked this of another religionist recently. Are you infallible? Are you immune to the following?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_mall_technique

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases

Well in making the claim that God is not real,

I do not make that claim.

which contradicts what I think is most the reasonable belief,

Of course you would think that.

I am skeptical of that idea. I can not just believe your idea without a good enough reason.

That is not my idea.

.. Is that possible?

Can you consciously choose to believe that your god is only a character in a book, right now? If you can, do it. Then tomorrow, switch back.

 

[Davian]

I was wondering when you were going to set the trap.

As I stated earlier. My house may very well be on fire. I have no way to prove or disprove the fires existence.

Coincidentally, I have heard the same thing said about gods.

How can I know without testing and observing it?

What is your means of testing this fire?

Don't stray from the point here.

Why can you not believe me when I tell you that your home is on fire? Can you not simply choose to do so?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

It is actually. I switch between literal and non-literal belief of Genesis as needed.

Loki's gambit. But you have both within your parameters of belief. Which is why you seem to be able to believe both at any given moment, because to you they're both plausible. So in turn they're both believable to you.

You're not turning a switch on or off, all you're doing is going hot or cold.

 

[Davian]

Eh? Can you please explain why you think this is ironic?

Post #265 may offer some insight. Then again, I do not know what your "non-literal belief of Genesis" actually entails. The way I read it was that you switch between a literal belief of Genesis and reality as needed.

 

[LostMarbels]

Coincidentally, I have heard the same thing said about gods.

This is true. So you cannot disprove God without prof. However I have no way of testing the validity of your claim of fire. You do have a way to test my claim there is a God.

Don't stray from the point here.

I'm with you 100%.

Why can you not believe me when I tell you that your home is on fire? Can you not simply choose to do so?

I am willing to see what you are talking about and accept it if it can be made evident. How does one test to see the validity of your claim? As I stated before, I do not believe in blind faith. And yes, I could chose to convince myself to believe something. That is why fact must trump personal belief. I cannot rely on my own understanding and or personal views.

 

[Davian]

This is true. So you cannot disprove God without prof.

Sure you can. Define your god in some testable, falsifiable manner.

However I have no way of testing the validity of your claim of fire. You do have a way to test my claim there is a God.

<looks for this "test", sees nothing>

I'm with you 100%.

I am willing to see what you are talking about and accept it if it can be made evident. How does one test to see the validity of your claim? As I stated before, I do not believe in blind faith. And yes, I could chose to convince myself to believe something. That is why fact must trump personal belief.

Careful. I have an irony meter, and I am not afraid to use it.

I cannot rely on my own understanding and or personal views.

Again, you are straying from the point. Do you agree that you cannot simply choose to believe? Yes or no?

 

[oi_antz]

For the former, I have only my impressions of what I have been presented here - an all-powerful, all-knowing "God" that walked and talked and loses people in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, repopulated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat riding a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing. For the latter, some cities are named that exist in reality.

You have problems reconciling the contents of Genesis with what you believe the history of the universe to be. What about the content of the other books in the bible, particularly the book of Acts?

I asked this of another religionist recently. Are you infallible? Are you immune to the following?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_the_mall_technique

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases

Not immune to that, at all. But I do know that these do not explain the sudden comprehension of Christianity that I was given in a moment when I asked for it.

I do not make that claim.

Of course you would think that.

That is not my idea.

Would you like to offer an explanation for this then, I will be better able to respond properly then. I will be grateful for that co-operation

Can you consciously choose to believe that your god is only a character in a book, right now? If you can, do it. Then tomorrow, switch back.

Yes I can. But, to do this for a moment gives me only a moment's understanding of it. But as I explained, to commit to this belief and gain further understandings, the implications are that I need to consider that I have been mistaken about my experiences, and that others too have been either mistaken or dishonest. It doesn't make the most convincing sense to me, so to commit to that belief would require me to be dishonest about various information that supports my belief that God is real. Thus, my belief is a conscious decision that is based on considertion of various information.

Loki's gambit. But you have both within your parameters of belief. Which is why you seem to be able to believe both at any given moment, because to you they're both plausible. So in turn they're both believable to you.

You're not turning a switch on or off, all you're doing is going hot or cold.

I don't know that expression Loki's gambit. It looks like some game characters, but I don't play games. I played pinball yesterday for the first time since I was a kid.

I think you are wrong about this. These beliefs are not hot nor cold. They are mutually exclusive, and everyone believes one or the other.

Post #265 may offer some insight. Then again, I do not know what your "non-literal belief of Genesis" actually entails. The way I read it was that you switch between a literal belief of Genesis and reality as needed.

The origin of the information in Genesis is not known to me. Therefore I consider it possible that the information origniated from Adam and Eve, transpired all generations into it's present form. The other possibility is that it was invented one way or another and therefore originated as mythology and somehow got compiled into it's present form. Since I don't know which origin is true, and both seem to be possible, I cannot honestly commit my beliefs to one in such a way I have to discount the other possibility on a hunch. But, when the message that someone is giving me depends on considering the origin one way or another, I am able to look at it that way. I wonder if this is a reasonable way to view it that gives you confidence to take me seriously. If you still feel that you can't take me seriously, can you please explain why not?

 

[oi_antz]

Careful. I have an irony meter, and I am not afraid to use it.

You should be though, it is foolhardy. Like this comment that someone made to me today:

The ransom was paid to God; nowhere does the bible indicate that this payment needed to be made --or was paid-- to humans/mankind.

 

[Catherineanne]

God specifically imposed suffering on humans and snakes for they were guilty of sin.
Nowhere does God mention that all other animals should suffer or change however.
So he must have created an an animal system in which suffering and terror was normal.
Hence the diagnosis of a sadistic psychopath.The sort of being that first creates flies and an ants and then delights in tearing the wings off a fly and dropping it into an ants nest.Or having a zebra get stuck in the mud of a riverbank so that crocodiles can slowly eat it alive by tearing off junks of flesh.
This is a God to be feared.

What of a God who ensures that any animal being so devoured is flooded with endorphins, which means that it is effectively anaesthetised from the pain? How can that be explained irt evolution? There is no advantage to 'nature red in tooth and claw' in a kind death.

That is a God not to be feared.

Meanwhile, the fall of mankind had an impact on the animal kingdom as well, and that is what we see in nature. God's ultimate purpose is for the lion to lie down with the lamb.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

I don't know that expression Loki's gambit. It looks like some game characters, but I don't play games. I played pinball yesterday for the first time since I was a kid.

I think you are wrong about this. These beliefs are not hot nor cold. They are mutually exclusive, and everyone believes one or the other.

Actually I'm not sure what I meant by bringing up Loki's Wager. I think I addressed that to the wrong guy. And are you saying that some days you actually believe genesis and some days you don't? I don't even know how to classify that.

 

[Catherineanne]

Adam and Eve came to our world from on high, this material Son and daughter were on a mission of redemption for our previously fallen, evolved earth. They defaulted, outflanked by the deceptions of the crafty beast, they lost their immortality status and were marooned here until death.

Oh dear.

 

[LostMarbels]

Sure you can. Define your god in some testable, falsifiable manner.

How? How do I explain that which you do not even believe in? And refute the very notion of? I find myself not being asked to explain, but to defend and/or justify Gods word. That's not my job. I am not responsible for Gods actions, nor can I judge them. It is almost an attempt at using the physical realm to explain the metaphysical. Or to use how grass grows as an explanation of why water is wet. Mans ideals, morals, and social ethics have nothing to do with God.

<looks for this "test", sees nothing>

If you really want to know, all you have to do is look. If you want to "test" God, you have to "test" God. That's the only way. If you honestly want to know the truth about Jesus you have to go to him. I was a wiccan, that called out to a God I did not know. I honestly wanted to know. He answered.

This is like trying to prove gravity to a man that dose not believe. All you have to do is drop the rock. Still there are some who will argue it was angular momentum that made the rock fall to the ground. If you are unwilling, then you will never find out.

Careful. I have an irony meter, and I am not afraid to use it.

Again, you are straying from the point. Do you agree that you cannot simply choose to believe? Yes or no?

No, I do not. I do not agree with you so I chose to not believe. Anyone can accept a belief system without any reason at all for many reasons. This leads to many trying to equate God to the same notion.

 

[Skavau]

LostMarbels So you think that if I wanted to I could just believe that 1+1 = 3?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In relation to a Deity? Because nobody wants a mediocre God. Or I would think not, anyway. YMMV, of course.

Creating a universe is mediocre? I don't think so. Even if God fails to be morally perfect, or perfect in every other respect, I think creating a universe would be an amazing accomplishment, no?

 

[Catherineanne]

Actually I'm not sure what I meant by bringing up Loki's Wager. I think I addressed that to the wrong guy. And are you saying that some days you actually believe genesis and some days you don't? I don't even know how to classify that.

Doesn't it rather depend on what is meant by 'believe'? Although we assume that people in former ages believed the Bible to be the equivalent of what we would call history, surely we have learned to regard it rather differently? Not because the Bible has changed, but because our appreciation of what history is has changed markedly. To Homer the stories of the Iliad and Oddyssey were history because they had no other. To the Vikings the stories of Odin were true. We can accept the truth that is contained within these mythologies, but we have a further layer to history that was not available to the first listeners; a layer that simply did not exist for them.

It is anachronistic to expect the Bible to behave as if it were written by a modern historian or journalist. It wasn't; that was never its intention.

Where once there might have been a struggle to reconcile science and faith, for most churches that struggle has long been reconciled, and both can now exist side by side, without either being compromised. The story of faith is not the same as the history of any given people. They may overlap, but they are not the same.

 

[Catherineanne]

Creating a universe is mediocre? I don't think so. Even if God fails to be morally perfect, or perfect in every other respect, I think creating a universe would be an amazing accomplishment, no?

A morally imperfect God would not be worth having. Ymmv.