Religion discussion

[KeenEmpire]

God's actions not being 'primarily' motivated by their possible sins" seems to assume that the whole situation doesn't come together like clockwork; God's motivation could be comprehensive (motivated not just by Job by by Job and his whole family). The book doesn't say this, but again, the story is only about Job.

This point actually comes into cumulation when we consider the uncountable (or 2,476,633, if you believe that statistic) number of people killed by God. Who knows how many more were killed in the Flood or in any other number of calamities. It is unreasonable, and unrealistic, to suggest that all of them were non-innocent. Indeed, many of them were probably children, who are innocent by any reasonable standard, including the Christian one. Such indiscriminate calamities as the Flood (as well as, arguably, His stupid killings) prove RoboBlue's point just as thoroughly as the particular example of Job that you seem to be nitpicking over.

The fact is: there is just too much baggage attached to the Christian faith to just dismiss out of hand.

[RoboBlue]

Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT)

Apparently God is now Eric Cartman from South Park. o.o
The message here is obviously "don't doubt the words of God, no matter how unseemly the person claiming to speak them seems", but that implies we should all enslave ourselves to anyone with an agenda who can claim "God told me to say that!"

[Levellass]

The message here is obviously "don't doubt the words of God, no matter how unseemly the person claiming to speak them seems", but that implies we should all enslave ourselves to anyone with an agenda who can claim "God told me to say that!"

On the other hand, when the person who says that has unbelievers falling down dead around them... maybe it's wise to pay heed. I always figured if they didn't deserve to go, then they'd be up in heaven, after all, to hear it from most religions this life is some cruddy stopover before the main event.

Who knows how many more were killed in the Flood or in any other number of calamities. It is unreasonable, and unrealistic, to suggest that all of them were non-innocent.

Mind, in the flood case God did say Noah was about the only one. You could argue children say, but maybe they got a pass to heaven too, it'd be better than living in an evil society I guess.

And yet this is the same God who told Lot (Or was it Abraham?) He'd not destroy Sodom if there were 20 good people in it.

MOM4Evr has chimed in at least to me, he has some lovely articles explaining how the Bible says the universe is only thousands of years old and that Creation was spread over six days which were literal 24 hour days. They're also available worldwide, as they're online.

And MOM4Evr is a Christian, not a Jehovah's Witness. There's a big difference. (Here we go again! YAY! Grin)

I know right? (Also right, damn Witnesses with their weird beleifs like Christ as savior and eternal life in paradise, it's just not christian I tell you!)

[RoboBlue]

On the other hand, when the person who says that has unbelievers falling down dead around them... maybe it's wise to pay heed. I always figured if they didn't deserve to go, then they'd be up in heaven, after all, to hear it from most religions this life is some cruddy stopover before the main event.

I understand that it may be wise not to provoke a killer, but is it morally right to support him?

Mind, in the flood case God did say Noah was about the only one. You could argue children say, but maybe they got a pass to heaven too, it'd be better than living in an evil society I guess.
And yet this is the same God who told Lot (Or was it Abraham?) He'd not destroy Sodom if there were 20 good people in it.

I'd like to make a comparison to "The Evil Empire", America. Many parts of the world consider us to be the modern day Soddom and Gomorrah, and even some people who live here believe this. If a majority can be labeled "sinners", would you support the death of every living person in the United States?
I'm sorry to ask this obviously loaded question, but it frightens me that anyone could strongly feel that an entire civilization is just plain evil and all of them should die. Also, I'd like to note that when Lot was asked to offers his male companions to be raped by other men in Soddom, he offered his two (probably unwilling) daughters as an "acceptable" substitute.

I know right? (Also right, damn Witnesses with their weird beleifs like Christ as savior and eternal life in paradise, it's just not christian I tell you!)

Out of curiosity, do many Mormons actually believe that Black people are cursed because they didn't choose a side in the battle between Jesus and Satan?

[Flaose]

Out of curiosity, do many Mormons actually believe that Black people are cursed because they didn't choose a side in the battle between Jesus and Satan?

It has been conjectured by many Mormons for a long time, but was rejected as false as early as 1847. Thus those who believe such are not following mainstream Mormon beliefs.

[KeenEmpire]

And yet this is the same God who told Lot (Or was it Abraham?) He'd not destroy Sodom if there were 20 good people in it.

So you're saying there were fewer than 10 (which is ultimately what it was negotiated down to) children in Sodom? What was Sodom's population, 40? It was supposedly a fairly major metropolis!

The Biblical idea of entire civilizations of wicked people doesn't hold any more water than the idea that all Muslims are wicked today. If no one else, there are always the children. And, by and large, there are always others in any sufficiently large civilization: people like Lot or Noah who are living peacefully (and, if you need it, monotheistically) with their one wife.

The notion that there literally was just about no one righteous (even, in Noah's case, in the entire world) is nothing more than blatant propaganda. The fact that it's believed is nothing less than a joke.

[Dynamo]

The Biblical idea of entire civilizations of wicked people doesn't hold any more water than the idea that all Muslims are wicked today. If no one else, there are always the children. And, by and large, there are always others in any sufficiently large civilization: people like Lot or Noah who are living peacefully (and, if you need it, monotheistically) with their one wife.

Gotta love how you people ignored my post completely and instead kept making useless TL;DR posts void of any real content. This post I just quoted doesn't mean anything at all, just as an example.

[Flaose]

.....

Why would people stop talking just because you told them to?

The post you quoted explains that it's unrealistic to believe that a population centre as large as the twin-cities of Sodom and Gomorrah could be so devoid of innocent people. Hardly devoid of content.

Actually, no. All [Jehovah's Witnesses] beliefs are based on twisted interpretations of the Bible. A lot of times, they directly endorse the Bible, then blatantly contradict it.

Do you have any concrete examples, or are you just parroting what they tell you in Sunday school?

Anything that has an alternate view of Jesus Christ than what the Bible teaches can't be called a CHRISTian, since they're trying to redefine Who Christ is.

Agreed, but Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons don't contradict the Bible, they just contradict the majority of Christianity's interpretation of the Bible; and, as you like to say, majority doesn't rule.

[Dynamo]

.....

Why would people stop talking just because you told them to?

Because someone has yet to prove me wrong on that?

The post you quoted explains that it's unrealistic to believe that a population centre as large as the twin-cities of Sodom and Gomorrah could be so devoid of innocent people. Hardly devoid of content.

Okay, so what?

[Eros]

I understand that it may be wise not to provoke a killer, but is it morally right to support him?

hey -- when out of sides to pick, choose the better of two evils.

if taking down a blatantly evil organization requires the help of an assassin, so be it.

people are truly two-faced, in public, they would say it would be wrong to take such drastic actions and it would be better to peacefully protest, but on the internet they would say the exact opposite.

[Ceilick]

This point actually comes into cumulation when we consider the uncountable (or 2,476,633, if you believe that statistic) number of people killed by God. Who knows how many more were killed in the Flood or in any other number of calamities. It is unreasonable, and unrealistic, to suggest that all of them were non-innocent. Indeed, many of them were probably children, who are innocent by any reasonable standard, including the Christian one. Such indiscriminate calamities as the Flood (as well as, arguably, His stupid killings) prove RoboBlue's point just as thoroughly as the particular example of Job that you seem to be nitpicking over.

Obviously the possible defense I presented was given only in the strict context of Job, and obviously if it were used in other cases it would become more unbelievable as the number of people involved increases. My 'nitpicking' over this particular example in Job is because the topic of discussion has been problems with the book of Job, not "problems with every instance where God killed 'innocents'" as you've transitioned us to.

[RoboBlue]

So you're saying there were fewer than 10 (which is ultimately what it was negotiated down to) children in Sodom? What was Sodom's population, 40? It was supposedly a fairly major metropolis!

You forget the implied homosexuality of the city, and the children were probably gay too (or at least victims of molestation, but that was extremely common in the old days). If you think of the city as a gigantic brothel for gays that only served one purpose, God's logic makes sense (although it's pretty sick to want to wipe out an entire culture because they don't share your values).

Anything that has an alternate view of Jesus Christ than what the Bible teaches can't be called a CHRISTian, since they're trying to redefine Who Christ is. What's the difference here between this and saying "I'm an Atheist, but I believe Jesus came and He was a nice person"? Can you really call yourself "Christian" just because you believe that Jesus Christ was a person Who existed?

The problem is, the Bible shows at least two subtly distinct views of Jesus Christ, specifically Jesus as a liberal proponent for radical church reform and Jesus as a "back to basics" conservative who respects and accepts the old laws. Worse, I'd guess that everyone here reads the Bible in English, and subtlety is easily lost in translation. If you compare and contrast the various Bible translations, you'll most likely find hundreds of minor errors, and probably a few major ones.
So, who are the "right" Christians that read the Bible in its original language and completely understand how nothing in the Bible conflicts with anything else?

[Pokota]

Considering at least a quarter of the Bible is actually a (probably abridged) historical record of the Jews, and a large part of what I get from the New Testament is that the Jews had been missing the point for several generations by Christ's time...

In a way, both views of Christ are correct. What He was teaching in His time was a lot closer to what Abraham likely practiced (except for the sacrificial offerings, which Christ did away with) than what the Jews in David's or Daniel's time likely practiced, and would have at the same time been radically different from what the various Foodiucees were practicing.

Funny thing about Homo sapiens, we tend to get so caught up in making sure we get the fiddly little things perfectly right that we miss the fact that the tower is now leaning.

[RoboBlue]

I'm reviving the topic to discuss this, since it's going to be a big issue in the coming months:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... picks=true

After a lot of thinking, I've come to the conclusion that while Mormons consider "Christians" to be "any believer or follower of Christ", there is no concrete definition of "Christianity" for non-Mormon sects.

What do you guys think about this, and do you think it would be possible to elect a candidate who isn't catholic or protestant? (Assuming Mormons don't consider themselves to be protestant)

[Deltamatic]

Electing a president that isn't Catholic or Protestant would probably need a voting base that isn't mostly Catholic and Protestant.
There are concrete definitions of "Christianity" outside of Mormonism, but the definitions vary widely.