Philosophical Ramblings

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Let me put it like this, very simply:

 

Did God create Adam knowing beforehand that he was going to choose to eat the fruit?

 

Absolutely I think he did know what was going to happen. But at the end of the day, he still created them both with the power to choose their own fate.... And boy did they ever.

 

I know the question that might come up next would be something along the lines of why would he create them if he knew already they'd chose to defy him in such a manner?

 

I'll just get it out of the way right now and say that I just don't know. haha. But frankly, since he wasn't the one who made Adam eat from that tree, but rather a decision Adam and Eve made out of their own will, that's where I leave it at.

 

Knowing something like that for a definite in the Christian world would probably be like knowing what God is thinking behind everything he does. Which is impossible.

 

Just popping in here to say DMac's integrity is unbelievably awesome. His religious views on TGP have been challenged constantly but he still maintains the faith, and even gives some good logical responses from his POV. A lot of people would have either lost their cool or quit arguing about it a long time ago. Props dude.

 

Thanks, but this is honestly one of the most epic sites on the internet. I truly do mean that. lol.

 

The fact that we can even argue and have conversations about this type of stuff with no extremists, no trolls, and with people truly expressing themselves and their opinion is second to none. Most other forums wouldn't even have a section like this.

 

Some of the coolest people in the world are here.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

A simple "no" might have sufficed. The problem here is that I can't say you're wrong, because I never personally met those guys. The other problem is that neither did you. You make bold statements and frame them as fact with logic that fits the argument you're trying to present. To say these kinds of things with that kind of finite conviction just rubs me the wrong way, because you can't possibly know all the things you think you know.

 

I use the Bible in every argument I make. Maybe I should opt to using verses as that's what I've always been taught to do, but I don't have a Bible-or my notes on me at all times so I go off the head. That's a big no-no that my mom would probably slaughter me for, so my bad. But it's habitual...

 

The issue with that then is that the people I'm arguing with (in this case, you) don't hold the Bible to the same level as I do where you believe (I'm assuming) that it's not the end-all. Which I do believe for it to be.

 

Let me put it this way: If we can't even get the factual accuracies of historical figures from the last 2 centuries down perfectly, then how is it you are able to presume that those guys from thousands of years ago are so squeaky clean? If you were writing a biography about one of your personal heroes, how much of the bad stuff would you really choose to include?

 

If Noah getting drunk and passing out stark naked in front of his sons or Moses striking a rock out of turn with a stick to shut the whiners up are the worst things those men ever did, then the writers should have tried a little harder to convince me. You could bring up Moses committing murder, but IIRC that isn't why he was denied access to the Promised Land. It was the trivial former crime that did him in.

 

As for Jesus...I think if even half of what is written about him is true (excluding miracles), then he was an amazing man so far ahead of his time he may has well have been from the future. Even still, to wave these statements around like concrete knowledge is what bothers me most, due in no small part to the fact that it was the way I myself acted for the majority of my youth.

 

Like I said everything I know about any of these people is based on the Bible, which I consider to be an accurate portrayal of history as well.

 

But here's another way to view it that may not be necessarily as Biblical; why would a God, any God chose these individuals over anyone else if they weren't truly the most faithful people of their generations?

 

I don't believe that these people were clean in all they do (outside of Jesus) because they were still humans and prone to make mistakes. They aren't bought up, but I think that it should be a given since they were still human.

 

The incidence with Moses pretty much illustrates just how human the most seemingly un-human the leaders of the Bible may of seemed were as God chose him as a spiritual leader, and even he made a grave mistake by ignoring orders given to him directly from God himself.

 

You've put this argument forth a few times already, all the while leaving out the most important example of slavery (genuine, whip cracking slavery) the OT has to offer. According to the Good Book, God painted a clear picture of his view of the enslavement of the Hebrews. That wasn't "bondsman" servitude the Pharaoh was implementing. It was the beating, torture, killing, and forced labor of an entire society of people.

 

The argument that I was challenging was not what bullshit rules got made up about how to treat your "bondsman", but rather the statement that slavery was viewed different back then than how it is now. Clearly God disapproved of that form of slavery. I'd put the treatment of the Hebrews in the same general ballpark as the treatment of 18th-19th Century African slaves. And yet it was okay for the slaves/indentured servants/bondsmen/whatever to be beaten by God's chosen to within an inch of their life as long as they didn't die right then, which leads back to the original point T-19 made that you never fully got around to explaining.

 

Here are the verses themselves where God tells Israel to destroy the neighboring villages (or countries, idk...). These are just two instances, but they give a pretty good idea.

 

 

“When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them. Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son. For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the LORD will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly. But thus you shall deal with them: you shall destroy their altars, and break down their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images, and burn their carved images with fire." (Deut. 7:1-5)

 

“But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God." (Deut. 20: 16-18)

 

 

God made it clear (through the use of disciples, etc) with all those neighboring countries at one point or another that they needed to turn away from their evil practices. They did not listen, he waited for what a lot of scholars consider 400 years (they get that from Genesis 15:16), and they did not change from there ways.

 

The Bible has made it pretty clear multiple times that at the end of the day there's only two choices, either life of salvation, repentance, or death because of sin. He passed judgement on those nations.

 

Even so. The people who survived those nations were turned into slaves in most cases as prisoners of war, the Hebrews still had to abide the same Mosaic laws in terms of how the could deal with the slaves.

 

This was nothing like what happened here in the US and other nations with the Africans. The Bible over everything else is extremely against slave trade. In the OT, partaking in slave trading was a death sentence. And in the NT slave traders are put in the same category as rapists and thieves, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

 

As far as the last tidbit about Thanatos and his comments on Exodus 21:20, I've already said all I can about it. I went as far as looking into my mom's Bible commentary and asking my pastor over the past couple of days as well as online sources that I had to use when I was younger, and they all point to Exodus 21:26-27 is about injuring or handicapping a "slave" being enough to have to let them go.

 

I'm chalking that one to difference of opinions, I'm not a Bible major or expert in that field, so arguing in semantics is something that I can't do.

 

And this is a good reason why I do my best to avoid these kinds of arguments. Faith is adhering to something without any supporting facts. I'm not a non-believer because I choose to be rebellious. I'm a non-believer because I'm an inquisitive human being who doesn't believe in pursuing a venture that may or may not be proven to be true at the end of all the struggles.

 

The majority of religious people will point to their book and say "I have faith that {insert deity here} exists because {insert holy text here} says so." Many of the non-believers say "I'm gonna need a little more proof than the Bronze Age ramblings of uneducated nomads, peasants and fishermen. Supply a little more modern evidence, and I will begin to believe." We just can't look at a Bible and say it has enough to explain all the things we see in the world that contradict it. It isn't some game we play just to antagonize the faithful (at least not in my case). It's an embracing of the human nature that your God, or all the deities of the world, gave me.

 

Then that's kinda where the line has to be drawn. I personally look at the world around me, life, the planet, the galaxy and I can't see a way any of this is possible without a God. How we're all in the most perfect planet for living.

 

I hear about miracles, people surviving this or that -that they shouldn't be surviving- when enough people bring it up to prayer and I tell myself there has to be a God. Sometimes I see/hear things that people say is "luck" and I feel like it'd requires way more convincing to just call it luck then to admit it's coming from a powerful being up there in the sky.

 

I've seen people have their entire lives changed for the better by believing. Heck, I myself wake up every morning with a sense of inner peace even when I'm awful on the outside. And I wouldn't be a Christian unless if I had done my homework. I was almost a religion major and I've seen and know enough about other religions to know that this one is very different from any other, and it's book's words make the most sense.

 

Obviously it doesn't work that way for everyone, and I respect that, I doubt my own faith all the time enough to commit sin after sin. But there are so many risks in this world that people take just because they have some faith that something will happen, or they trust that something is going to happen.

 

I'd just rather put that faith and risk into something I believe can change me for the better and one day live in a world where peace is actually a real thing.

 

And that doesn't strike you at all as just a little childish or, dare I say, human? It's like he's holding a magnifying glass over a bunch of ants...if they don't go the way he wants without his guidance, he fries them.

 

Not at all... I just see it as a God giving you two options, and leaving it completely up to you to decide for yourself.

Edited June 29, 2013 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[Thanatos 2,847]

Absolutely I think he did know what was going to happen. But at the end of the day, he still created them both with the power to choose their own fate.... And boy did they ever.

 

I know the question that might come up next would be something along the lines of why would he create them if he knew already they'd chose to defy him in such a manner?

 

I'll just get it out of the way right now and say that I just don't know. haha. But frankly, since he wasn't the one who made Adam eat from that tree, but rather a decision Adam and Eve made out of their own will, that's where I leave it at.

 

That actually isn't where I'm going with this, though that is also a good question.

 

So, Adam was created with full knowledge he was going to eat the fruit. The question is, why did he choose to eat the fruit? On what basis? Our choices are not made in a vacuum, they are based on something. There is no such thing as a completely "free" choice.

 

There are only two options here. Either A) it was purely random, and if the same scenario happened again, he'd have a 50/50 chance of not eating the fruit, or B) it was based on either an experience he had, or the nature he was created with.

 

If its his nature, then his choosing the fruit is a direct result of the way God created him, for which he was then punished anyway.

 

If its an experience, then that was due to the situation that he was put in by God when he was created, as he hasn't yet left the garden. Either way, God is directly responsible for the choice that he made.

 

I would also argue that most Christians do not believe Adam actually had a choice. Oh, they say he did. But think it through logically. Are you really saying that Adam could have chosen not to take the fruit? All of God's plan for history would have been completely and totally thrown out of whack if mankind doesn't fall. Could he really then have chosen not to take fruit?

 

Not at all... I just see it as a God giving you two options, and leaving it completely up to you to decide for yourself.

 

Its completely up to you... but if you choose wrong, then you go to Hell for all eternity.

 

That's another thing that was a problem for me. No God can be just that punishes a finite sin with an infinite punishment. I don't care if its Adolf Hitler, after a billion years of being burned alive, one would think he had paid for his sins.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Thanatos19

[Phins4life 271]

I use the Bible in every argument I make. Maybe I should opt to using verses as that's what I've always been taught to do, but I don't have a Bible-or my notes on me at all times so I go off the head. That's a big no-no that my mom would probably slaughter me for, so my bad. But it's habitual...

 

The issue with that then is that the people I'm arguing with (in this case, you) don't hold the Bible to the same level as I do where you believe (I'm assuming) that it's not the end-all. Which I do believe for it to be.

 

Whether you locate direct quotes or just go off the top of your head doesn't change the fact that you admittedly only reference one source to validate your argument...a source that has been in dire need of a few updates for thousands of years.

 

You're absolutely right, though. I don't view the Bible as the end all for two reasons: there are numerous other holy texts across the world that tell their own story, which may or may not be more or less true than the Bible, and because it strikes me as foolish to make an argument off of one source. I'm a weather forecaster by trade, so by force of habit I'm inclined to look up information from numerous sources and then corroborate them to make a sound, logical decision. I choose to use that approach when I debate as well.

 

If the word of God commanded you to believe the world was flat, would you do it? Would you willfully go against everything you know just to stay true to your book? This is just an example, and kind of a silly one, but it suits the point I'm trying to make. You know the world is a sphere thanks to other sources. The more you use, the more valid your argument becomes.

 

 

 

Like I said everything I (presume to) know about any of these people is based on the Bible, which I consider to be an accurate portrayal of history as well.

 

Sure. The Muslims consider their book to be an accurate protrayal, too. What makes their book less right than yours? Because the Bible was around longer? They are just as convinced that Muhammed was the highest prophet as you are that Jesus is the Savior of all mankind. If all you're going to do to is grab a few supporting quotes from your book, then it's kind of a moot point, because that's exactly what they do, too. You're just going around in circles having a "My God is better" pissing match with no objective source in between to validate the accuracy of the source material.

 

But here's another way to view it that may not be necessarily as Biblical; why would a God, any God chose these individuals over anyone else if they weren't truly the most faithful people of their generations?

 

Shits and giggles? Who knows? Maybe he just wanted to let it play out. The OT God was a chaos junky with a fetish for destroying entire cities just because they didn't worship him. He told Abraham to kill his only son, the one he had waited for his whole life, just to prove his loyalty. He made an under the table deal with Satan that allowed Job to suffer the worst indignities life can muster up for one man. He fits the profile of a sociopathic egomaniac. But since he created us, we should just give him a pass?

 

I don't believe that these people were clean in all they do (outside of Jesus) because they were still humans and prone to make mistakes. They aren't bought up, but I think that it should be a given since they were still human.

 

Agreed. At the very least it would make them more believable.

 

The incidence with Moses pretty much illustrates just how human the most seemingly un-human the leaders of the Bible may of seemed were as God chose him as a spiritual leader, and even he made a grave mistake by ignoring orders given to him directly from God himself.

 

Which takes me back to what I said...seriously? He committed murder...eh. But to strike the rock with a hint of malice in the heart...call the cops. Makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

 

Here are the verses themselves where God tells Israel to destroy the neighboring villages (or countries, idk...). These are just two instances, but they give a pretty good idea.

 

 

“When the LORD your God brings you into the land which you go to possess, and has cast out many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than you, and when the LORD your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them. Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son. For they will turn your sons away from following Me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the LORD will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly. But thus you shall deal with them: you shall destroy their altars, and break down their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images, and burn their carved images with fire." (Deut. 7:1-5)

 

“But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God." (Deut. 20: 16-18)

 

 

God made it clear (through the use of disciples, etc) with all those neighboring countries at one point or another that they needed to turn away from their evil practices. They did not listen, he waited for what a lot of scholars consider 400 years (they get that from Genesis 15:16), and they did not change from there ways.

 

The Bible has made it pretty clear multiple times that at the end of the day there's only two choices, either life of salvation, repentance, or death because of sin. He passed judgement on those nations.

 

Even so. The people who survived those nations were turned into slaves in most cases as prisoners of war, the Hebrews still had to abide the same Mosaic laws in terms of how the could deal with the slaves.

 

What were the crimes of the people in these cities? Deciding not to believe in God? Being gay? Adultery? Killing? Thieving?

 

What exactly were the children guilty of? Original sin? "Let nothing that breathes remain alive" pretty much tells me what happened to them.

 

This is one of those examples where we strongly differ on the reasoning behind these atrocities. You will likely say it was because they were wicked cities who deserved to be completely destroyed, to show that Abraham's God was not to be fucked with. I will say that because I believe God to be an ever-evolving extension of the human psyche, and because of how common tribal and clan warfare was in those days, they decided to use God as their justification. Killing in the name of one's deity isn't a new fad. The Greeks killed for theirs. So did the Aztecs, Muslims, Romans, etc.

 

This was nothing like what happened here in the US and other nations with the Africans.

 

Based on the descriptions of the treatment of the Hebrews and the terrible quality of life, I disagree. Remember, I'm not talking about slave trade. I'm talking about the treatment of slaves. Same ballpark, but not the area I'm addressing.

 

 

Then that's kinda where the line has to be drawn. I personally look at the world around me, life, the planet, the galaxy and I can't see a way any of this is possible without a God. How we're all in the most perfect planet for living.

 

I hear about miracles, people surviving this or that -that they shouldn't be surviving- when enough people bring it up to prayer and I tell myself there has to be a God. Sometimes I see/hear things that people say is "luck" and I feel like it'd requires way more convincing to just call it luck then to admit it's coming from a powerful being up there in the sky.

 

Out of curiosity, how exactly would contact with extraterrestrials (hypothetical of course) impact your philosophy about this being the perfect setup for life?

 

And that's why I choose to call things chance or coincidence rather than miracles. It boils down to our individual nature. I call it chance, and have a desire to find an explanation for what happened. It's harder. More challenging. People who believe in miracles can take the easy route and chalk it up to their magical being and they're done. Throughout history humanity has changed their stance on mysterious phenomena once they discovered the driving mechanisms behind them. Gravity, weather, electricity, fire...the list goes on and on. Because there may never be enough time for all the answers, I believe there will always be things that are classified as unexplainable. Which also means there will always be the debate of miracles vs. chance.

 

I've seen people have their entire lives changed for the better by believing. Heck, I myself wake up every morning with a sense of inner peace even when I'm awful on the outside.

 

The mind is an incredibly powerful thing few people give enough credit to. For some people, belief is all it takes to convince themselves their lives will be better. I will never see things the way they do, but it certainly isn't my place to rob them of what makes them happy if that's all they desire out of life.

 

Not at all... I just see it as a God giving you two options, and leaving it completely up to you to decide for yourself.

 

Definitely in a stalemate on this one, I suppose.

[OSUViking 505]

 

Not at all... I just see it as a God giving you two options, and leaving it completely up to you to decide for yourself.

 

Then that isn't free will. It's not free will if God will strike you down for choosing, in your own "free will", to disobey him.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

That actually isn't where I'm going with this, though that is also a good question.

 

So, Adam was created with full knowledge he was going to eat the fruit. The question is, why did he choose to eat the fruit? On what basis? Our choices are not made in a vacuum, they are based on something. There is no such thing as a completely "free" choice.

 

There are only two options here. Either A) it was purely random, and if the same scenario happened again, he'd have a 50/50 chance of not eating the fruit, or B) it was based on either an experience he had, or the nature he was created with.

 

If its his nature, then his choosing the fruit is a direct result of the way God created him, for which he was then punished anyway.

 

If its an experience, then that was due to the situation that he was put in by God when he was created, as he hasn't yet left the garden. Either way, God is directly responsible for the choice that he made.

 

I would also argue that most Christians do not believe Adam actually had a choice. Oh, they say he did. But think it through logically. Are you really saying that Adam could have chosen not to take the fruit? All of God's plan for history would have been completely and totally thrown out of whack if mankind doesn't fall. Could he really then have chosen not to take fruit?

 

He was lured into eating the fruit by the devil. It's essentially a microcosm (a huge microcosm) of what goes on every day in a person's life. More specifically, a Christian, or anyone who believes in a hell and a Satan/devil, where we are tempted.

 

He gave into his curiosity that was spiked by the devil who was in the garden. It isn't God's fault that Adam and Eve chose to bite of the fruit, it was their own. God knew it was going to happen, but it doesn't change the fact that it's not like he programed Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, they chose to do it on there own free will.

 

Its completely up to you... but if you choose wrong, then you go to Hell for all eternity.

 

That's another thing that was a problem for me. No God can be just that punishes a finite sin with an infinite punishment. I don't care if its Adolf Hitler, after a billion years of being burned alive, one would think he had paid for his sins.

 

This is also something I don't see anything wrong with. All it does to me is further emphasize why I as a Christian would want to get others to convert.

 

I sympathize with those who never get the word reached out to them and die without the ability to chose God. But the blame for that goes on people like myself who don't get the word to them. But those who know what they are doing, and have probably been warned, will get what they deserve, and while I feel awful on the inside because I know that they are no better then I am, they chose their own fate, as did I. That's the ultimate sign of free will IMO.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Whether you locate direct quotes or just go off the top of your head doesn't change the fact that you admittedly only reference one source to validate your argument...a source that has been in dire need of a few updates for thousands of years.

 

You're absolutely right, though. I don't view the Bible as the end all for two reasons: there are numerous other holy texts across the world that tell their own story, which may or may not be more or less true than the Bible, and because it strikes me as foolish to make an argument off of one source. I'm a weather forecaster by trade, so by force of habit I'm inclined to look up information from numerous sources and then corroborate them to make a sound, logical decision. I choose to use that approach when I debate as well.

 

If the word of God commanded you to believe the world was flat, would you do it? Would you willfully go against everything you know just to stay true to your book? This is just an example, and kind of a silly one, but it suits the point I'm trying to make. You know the world is a sphere thanks to other sources. The more you use, the more valid your argument becomes.

 

Absolutely. Because there's a long line of people in the history of the world who have done the same and have gone on to live very normal lives. Mine is no different.

 

Obviously I'm not gonna go as far as to completely throw out science, or clear and obvious facts. But in terms of a moral code of how to live, I couldn't think of a better source outside of my elders. But even they most of the time say things that are already in the book, or refer me to it.

 

Sure. The Muslims consider their book to be an accurate protrayal, too. What makes their book less right than yours? Because the Bible was around longer? They are just as convinced that Muhammed was the highest prophet as you are that Jesus is the Savior of all mankind. If all you're going to do to is grab a few supporting quotes from your book, then it's kind of a moot point, because that's exactly what they do, too. You're just going around in circles having a "My God is better" pissing match with no objective source in between to validate the accuracy of the source material.

 

Then that's something I'd love to take up with a Muslim any day of the week. It'd certainly be interesting, but it's clear which one came first, and which one followed suite.

 

Shits and giggles? Who knows? Maybe he just wanted to let it play out. The OT God was a chaos junky with a fetish for destroying entire cities just because they didn't worship him. He told Abraham to kill his only son, the one he had waited for his whole life, just to prove his loyalty. He made an under the table deal with Satan that allowed Job to suffer the worst indignities life can muster up for one man. He fits the profile of a sociopathic egomaniac. But since he created us, we should just give him a pass?

 

Isaac was not Abraham's only son, but his second one. He was referred to by God as his only son because he -Isaac- fate was directly linked to Jesus. Jesus being God's "only begotten son". Complicating theology stuff that I don't fully understand...

 

All he did was allow Satan to test Job, something that he allows Satan to do with everyone including his "own begotten Son" and anybody who considers themselves Christians.

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a God allowing for the people who have faith in him the most to get tested. All it does is reaffirm their faith, or show that the believer was never truly a believer to begin with.

 

What were the crimes of the people in these cities? Deciding not to believe in God? Being gay? Adultery? Killing? Thieving?

 

What exactly were the children guilty of? Original sin? "Let nothing that breathes remain alive" pretty much tells me what happened to them.

 

This is one of those examples where we strongly differ on the reasoning behind these atrocities. You will likely say it was because they were wicked cities who deserved to be completely destroyed, to show that Abraham's God was not to be fucked with. I will say that because I believe God to be an ever-evolving extension of the human psyche, and because of how common tribal and clan warfare was in those days, they decided to use God as their justification. Killing in the name of one's deity isn't a new fad. The Greeks killed for theirs. So did the Aztecs, Muslims, Romans, etc.

 

The Jews were the smallest of all the nations they attacked or destroyed. They were heavily in some situations out-maned, and were sometimes in the battle field facing people that were physical on another level of dominance (Example -David and Golliath).

 

If the Bible is any indication at all of what was taking place, it's beyond impossible for them to of actually destroyed all these cities unless if the hand of a God was playing a part.

 

Based on the descriptions of the treatment of the Hebrews and the terrible quality of life, I disagree. Remember, I'm not talking about slave trade. I'm talking about the treatment of slaves. Same ballpark, but not the area I'm addressing.

 

The Bible makes it clear that regardless of whether or not an individual was a "slave", it doesn't matter because we are all brothers and sisters and equals to God. And Jesus went as far as saying in the NT (where the same slave laws were still somewhat in tact) that we should all view each other the same because God views us all the same. As far as I'm concerned, the similarities were slim if any.

 

Out of curiosity, how exactly would contact with extraterrestrials (hypothetical of course) impact your philosophy about this being the perfect setup for life?

 

And that's why I choose to call things chance or coincidence rather than miracles. It boils down to our individual nature. I call it chance, and have a desire to find an explanation for what happened. It's harder. More challenging. People who believe in miracles can take the easy route and chalk it up to their magical being and they're done. Throughout history humanity has changed their stance on mysterious phenomena once they discovered the driving mechanisms behind them. Gravity, weather, electricity, fire...the list goes on and on. Because there may never be enough time for all the answers, I believe there will always be things that are classified as unexplainable. Which also means there will always be the debate of miracles vs. chance.

 

If the Bible is an indication of anything, it's that the earth is one of a kind. If there turns out to be one just like it? That may be enough to have me turn away from the Bible. But I don't believe in that stuff. I'd have to see it way before I could believe it.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Then that isn't free will. It's not free will if God will strike you down for choosing, in your own "free will", to disobey him.

 

How is it not free will? Is he choosing for the individuals? Is he forcing them to go one way?

[OSUViking 505]

How is it not free will? Is he choosing for the individuals? Is he forcing them to go one way?

 

He isn't forcing them to follow his word; he just brings his wrath upon him if they don't. Free will has never been a concept that I believed was consistent with the Biblical stories or their meanings.

[Phins4life 271]

Absolutely. Because there's a long line of people in the history of the world who have done the same and have gone on to live very normal lives. Mine is no different.

 

Obviously I'm not gonna go as far as to completely throw out science, or clear and obvious facts. But in terms of a moral code of how to live, I couldn't think of a better source outside of my elders. But even they most of the time say things that are already in the book, or refer me to it.

 

Wasn't referring to moral code... of which there are much older examples than those inscribed in the Bible. I was only referring to things you know that directly contradict what the Holy Book says. Would you be willing to go against what you know to be true just to support the Bible to the letter, even if you knew the information to be false?

 

Then that's something I'd love to take up with a Muslim any day of the week. It'd certainly be interesting, but it's clear which one came first, and which one followed suite.

 

And what about the religious texts even older than the Bible?

 

Isaac was not Abraham's only son, but his second one. He was referred to by God as his only son because he -Isaac- fate was directly linked to Jesus. Jesus being God's "only begotten son". Complicating theology stuff that I don't fully understand...

 

Okay, okay...you got me here. I should have specified that Isaac was the only Covenant-born son, which amplifies the significance of the request God made, and how twisted the request was in the first place.

 

All he did was allow Satan to test Job, something that he allows Satan to do with everyone including his "own begotten Son" and anybody who considers themselves Christians.

 

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a God allowing for the people who have faith in him the most to get tested. All it does is reaffirm their faith, or show that the believer was never truly a believer to begin with.

 

Wow...no idea where to begin with this one. Job wasn't just "tested". He was tormented to the fullest extent a human can be taken, physically and psychologically. I sincerely doubt you'd sing that same tune if your body were covered with boils and your entire family and livelihood taken from you.

 

The Jews were the smallest of all the nations they attacked or destroyed. They were heavily in some situations out-maned, and were sometimes in the battle field facing people that were physical on another level of dominance (Example -David and Golliath).

 

If the Bible is any indication at all of what was taking place, it's beyond impossible for them to of actually destroyed all these cities unless if the hand of a God was playing a part.

 

This response has nothing to do with my original point. I was questioning why the destruction of these cities was occurring in the first place, and why even the children had to be killed. What is the justification for destroying an entire city, with or without God's help?

 

The Bible makes it clear that regardless of whether or not an individual was a "slave", it doesn't matter because we are all brothers and sisters and equals to God. And Jesus went as far as saying in the NT (where the same slave laws were still somewhat in tact) that we should all view each other the same because God views us all the same. As far as I'm concerned, the similarities were slim if any.

 

Again, it really seems like my points are getting twisted. I was comparing the treatment of the Hebrews by the Egyptians to the treatment of African slaves by Americans and Europeans, and saying that that was similar. I brought that example up in the first place to get you to explain why you figured the treatment of slaves should be viewed differently back then to how it is viewed today.

 

You even mentioned yourself that God fully disapproved of slave trade, which proves that the views on even that topic haven't changed that much after all. I don't understand why you keep moving away from the original points.

 

If the Bible is an indication of anything, it's that the earth is one of a kind. If there turns out to be one just like it? That may be enough to have me turn away from the Bible. But I don't believe in that stuff. I'd have to see it way before I could believe it.

 

And the truth shall set you free. You'll have to see it to believe it. Welcome to the world of a non-believer.

[Jules 98]

Here are my ramblings for tonight...

 

 

 

What if it's all a lie? What if all the information being allowed for us to view is limited and the elite of this world.....the powers to be.....the secret societies (oh they are out there) have the real power to view full knowledge and hide the truth from the public?

 

What if the truth about religion, about our Earth, about the universe and about various things you can go on and on about in terms of questions.....is not fully within our grasp?

 

What if we make decisions on beliefs with limited and censored amounts of things to view and read and this has been going on for some time?

 

What if to truly reach a real awakening in the United States or within this world we need to reach the knowledge that we have not been able to reach yet? And if we somehow gained access to it and found out we have been with-held....what would mass reactions be.

 

The reason I am thinking and speaking like this was after watching videos tonight on space travel and wondering to myself, "What is the real truth?!". On various things what is the real truth. What are WE not being told? Cause I truly feel "they" are hiding things...important things. Things that could possibly alter the human race and how we might even think!

 

Above us, below us, around us.....there is likely so much we do not know. The problem is what if the information is out there and not being shared? Perhaps I am being paranoid but I fully believe there is information not released to the public in order to maintain the social order "they" have set for us at the top.

 

I have been told I am a conspiracy theorist in the past more then once but I still believe there is so much out there we don't know and that maybe we SHOULD know. But, it's being held from us possibly....?

[RazorStar 4,025]

Truth is merely an abstract concept. Begin with morality, if a simple issue of right and wrong cannot be cut and dry, if exceptions exist, then no truth is absolute. On a more relevant scale, knowledge is a tool to grant power, and like all of those tools, a firm grasp is kept on those tools so that those with power do not lose it.

 

I don't think there is this treasure trove of information you're dreaming of though. No modern day Pandora's Box that would turn the world on it's head if revealed. Power lies where people believe it lies, and societies exist as a way to inhibit change, to keep the status quo. Sure we can give gay people rights, while we take away everyone's freedoms. But at least Steve and Marty can get married now. People simply allow themselves to be oppressed because it is the path of least resistance. No one truly ants to change their fate if they're comfortable, and as long as everyone is happy, society maintains.

 

These are fundamental principles of not just human nature, but the natural entropic flow of the universe as well. It may surprise you to believe that I feel that the people on top are just as anxious and confused about life as the rest of the common plebeians. That despite their nobility, they still bend and acquiesce on the path of least resistance. Change is scary, I'll stay in my nightmare thanks.

 

In every day, in every age, the deeds of men remain the same.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Above us, below us, around us.....there is likely so much we do not know. The problem is what if the information is out there and not being shared? Perhaps I am being paranoid but I fully believe there is information not released to the public in order to maintain the social order "they" have set for us at the top.

 

I have been told I am a conspiracy theorist in the past more then once but I still believe there is so much out there we don't know and that maybe we SHOULD know. But, it's being held from us possibly....?

 

This was brought up at the lake a few nights ago and it got me to thinking. I really do believe that the information is out there, now whether or not we choose to see it is different.

 

It may be nonsensical to some but others are ardent in the belief that aliens exist. There is some semblance of "proof" on the matter in strict terms of the definition alien. Maybe not extraterrestrial beings, but in the fact that there were beings that were alien to us at some point. Looking at civilizations underwater will really get you to thinking. If what we know about science is true than not only is religious scholars but scientific scholars have been wrong. Many people choose not to admit it but scientists have always seem to be somewhat of an elitist group who prizes exclusivity above all else just as religion, but that is a different matter and far from the point.

 

Look at civilizations like the Hindu's and you will hear of the legendary city of Dwarka and how an ancient battle of cosmic proportions took place. How when reading there seems to be a link to ET's fighting with weapons we still can not comprehend Krishna I believe. Or the fact that there has been DATED underwater civilizations that go back 14000 years when we were supposed to be cave dwellers writing on walls, they were building roads, walls, intricate palaces and statues. There are over 200 sunken citizens in the Mediterranean alone. Ancient Japanese drawings that show a flying saucer carrying a mystical box, and from this encounter mass quantities of knowledge were spread. These are not myths these are facts. Now did you know about them ? Maybe or maybe not but there is evidence out there that proves one of two things. Either scientists have been wrong about how long we have been here and the steps of advancements we have taken, or it is empirical proof of life forms we dont know about. This is just the tip there is so much more I coudl fill up a page alone but wont.

 

The point is information is out there. As to the secret societies, yeah I am sure they are out there but I dont believe they have these mind fucks of secrets because you are telling me over the last however long not one person has been able to compromise them. That and in todays age it would take a thumb drive and could be leaked to every major news group in the world in about 10 minutes. I mean it is just way to easy for secrets to get out. Now do they hold influence, of that I have no doubt. How much is anyones guess. When it comes to that though it still isnt hard. Follow the money. Any time you follow something of intrinsic value you are bound to find a secret society and it has been thus since the dawn of time. From the Bildeberg of today to the knights templar, find valuable objects and you will in turn run into a secret society. It is out there, you just have to find it.

 

The real question is do you want to know ? Most people are appaled at the idea of Gitmo still being opened. Now I am relatively sure although I cant confirm and have zero proof that worse has/is happening. I mean the places you dont hear about, the ones where torture is an everyday thing and hardly news worthy, where people are killed because they can not be released after what has been done to them. I am not specifically saying our government but a lot of more "civilized" governments in general. Most people dont want to face the facts that are presented to them on a daily basis which is why they do such a good job of creating counter stories no matter how implausible they may seem. People would do what they do now. They would decide their comfort level and then if they believe it become outraged for 5 miniutes until the Simpsons came on or they would decide it is too uncomfortable and decide that they dont believe.

[Jules 98]

This was brought up at the lake a few nights ago and it got me to thinking. I really do believe that the information is out there, now whether or not we choose to see it is different.

 

It may be nonsensical to some but others are ardent in the belief that aliens exist. There is some semblance of "proof" on the matter in strict terms of the definition alien. Maybe not extraterrestrial beings, but in the fact that there were beings that were alien to us at some point. Looking at civilizations underwater will really get you to thinking. If what we know about science is true than not only is religious scholars but scientific scholars have been wrong. Many people choose not to admit it but scientists have always seem to be somewhat of an elitist group who prizes exclusivity above all else just as religion, but that is a different matter and far from the point.

 

Look at civilizations like the Hindu's and you will hear of the legendary city of Dwarka and how an ancient battle of cosmic proportions took place. How when reading there seems to be a link to ET's fighting with weapons we still can not comprehend Krishna I believe. Or the fact that there has been DATED underwater civilizations that go back 14000 years when we were supposed to be cave dwellers writing on walls, they were building roads, walls, intricate palaces and statues. There are over 200 sunken citizens in the Mediterranean alone. Ancient Japanese drawings that show a flying saucer carrying a mystical box, and from this encounter mass quantities of knowledge were spread. These are not myths these are facts. Now did you know about them ? Maybe or maybe not but there is evidence out there that proves one of two things. Either scientists have been wrong about how long we have been here and the steps of advancements we have taken, or it is empirical proof of life forms we dont know about. This is just the tip there is so much more I coudl fill up a page alone but wont.

 

The point is information is out there. As to the secret societies, yeah I am sure they are out there but I dont believe they have these mind fucks of secrets because you are telling me over the last however long not one person has been able to compromise them. That and in todays age it would take a thumb drive and could be leaked to every major news group in the world in about 10 minutes. I mean it is just way to easy for secrets to get out. Now do they hold influence, of that I have no doubt. How much is anyones guess. When it comes to that though it still isnt hard. Follow the money. Any time you follow something of intrinsic value you are bound to find a secret society and it has been thus since the dawn of time. From the Bildeberg of today to the knights templar, find valuable objects and you will in turn run into a secret society. It is out there, you just have to find it.

 

The real question is do you want to know ? Most people are appaled at the idea of Gitmo still being opened. Now I am relatively sure although I cant confirm and have zero proof that worse has/is happening. I mean the places you dont hear about, the ones where torture is an everyday thing and hardly news worthy, where people are killed because they can not be released after what has been done to them. I am not specifically saying our government but a lot of more "civilized" governments in general. Most people dont want to face the facts that are presented to them on a daily basis which is why they do such a good job of creating counter stories no matter how implausible they may seem. People would do what they do now. They would decide their comfort level and then if they believe it become outraged for 5 miniutes until the Simpsons came on or they would decide it is too uncomfortable and decide that they dont believe.

 

Thanks for the well thought out reply.

 

lol I had totally forgotten about this thread!! I will have to think about this stuff a bit more again.

 

Nice points on secret societies too btw.

 

Nice lines here:

 

The real question is do you want to know ?

 

And

 

Most people dont want to face the facts that are presented to them on a daily basis which is why they do such a good job of creating counter stories no matter how implausible they may seem.

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

How did I miss this thread....

[Omerta+ 1,206]

How did I miss this thread....

 

First thought...because you suck.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Ngata_Chance

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

 

How did I miss this thread....

 

First thought...because you suck.