are any guys of opeth satanists?

[Jon Snow]

God says that we humans should not kill each other. He does not include himself in this, though as a benevolent God i trust that he will not kill without good reason, whether i understand that reason or not.

So do as I say not as I do? He's not setting a very good example. The God of the Old Testament is benevolent? I beg you to go back and read the entire Old Testament and then claim that the God portrayed is benevolent. Or please look at that link I posted about Bible cruelties. Jesus was benevolant. The God of the Old Testament is quite the opposite.

I'm not sure what to make of the castration quotes..

You're not alone.


As for slavery. I can't worship a God that would tolerate the ownership of one human by another.

as for the Kings quote, i'd assume it means don't ridicule your peers on their appearance. note that whatever punishment was handed out was done by God's influence. i'm not so sure about the use of the word "curse". that doesn't seem like it fits.

It just seems silly to me that God made bears came out and maul 42 children. Seems overally harsh for making fun of someone. Yet God can kill innocent children and infants because His own laws are good enough for His people but not Himself?

Also, what do you view God as? Is God a male? Are we really made in His image? If so does that mean there is a Holy Penis, Testacles, and Prostate in heaven? Why would God need reproductive organs or a digestive system, etc.? Does He have a rectum and a bladder? Does He have to shit and piss like all of us? He clearly has emotions including wrath. Wrath is one of the seven deadly sins. Does that mean He also feels lust and gluttony?

It is quite clear to me that Man was not created in the image of God but that God was created in the image of Man. Man created God and anthropomorphically gave Him human emotions.

 

[Shadows Skulk]

what is light? some would say its a wave. others say its a particle. clearly it can't be both, cause that's a contradiction.

This is almost too incorrect


No one would say it IS a particle, because it isn't true. Quantum mechanics says it needn't be one or the other, but can exhibit properties of both waves and particles. No contradiction, other than the one you made up to argue your point.

also, they've now studied particles that (if you've taken chemistry you understand "spin") can be simultaneously spin-up and spin-down, aka both 1 AND 0. logically that is a contradiction

No, this is foreseeably induced by superposition

 

[Kenneth R.]

@ Jon Snow:

Man was created in the image of God. it doesn't say man was made AS God. i don't think He has a gender or that he is subject to human functions. we call God "He" because we think of Him (as Jesus also said) as the Father of humanity. in such a way "He" is the word used, though He doesn't have a gender. The difference between the sin "wrath" and the wrath of God is that His wrath is of righteousness.

@Shadows Skulk: it is now accepted that it has "properties" of both because disagreeing scientists couldn't nail it to either one, some said X and some said Y and they compromised because it showed traits of both. that is my point. because something shows X and sometimes Y does not make it a contradiction, as you said. i'm saying that in analyzing these verses, just because they say different things doesn't make them contradict as they are in different contexts.

 

[Jon Snow]

@ Jon Snow:

The difference between the sin "wrath" and the wrath of God is that His wrath is of righteousness.

Is that like fighting a war for peace?

 

[Kenneth R.]

Is that like fighting a war for peace?

its difficult to quantify. its a very gray area as far as fighting goes. i think what is intended for us is, defend what is worth defending, standing your ground for your loved ones and friends, and defending God's glory. taking steps forward to strike i think is a no-no.

as for whether God follows these as well, i really don't know. i would say he probably knows more than us in terms of what may or may not happen and acts accordingly. again i use the word "trust" in him, that he is doing what needs to be done. it's not blind trust or blind faith, he has shown himself to be (at least from my perspective) very caring towards us down here when he could have done otherwise on a whim.

its a hard thing to discuss because people think differently about it (even among Christians, it is debated) but i think the general gist is as i said in the first paragraph: humans are supposed to defend from aggression that which is worth defending, but not be the aggressor ever.

 

[Jon Snow]

I'm still not buying the righteous wrath explanation. That makes as much sense to me as righteous envy or righteous lust.

 

[Shadows Skulk]

@Shadows Skulk: it is now accepted that it has "properties" of both because disagreeing scientists couldn't nail it to either one, some said X and some said Y and they compromised because it showed traits of both. that is my point. because something shows X and sometimes Y does not make it a contradiction, as you said. i'm saying that in analyzing these verses, just because they say different things doesn't make them contradict as they are in different contexts.

I agree, but there are some things that can't be explained away like that, that I can't be bothered to find as long as Jon Snow is doing it.

 

[dorian gray]

this whole conversation reminds me of something my friend said recently: "why, when adam and eve are banished from the garden, does god guard the entrance with a flaming sword? why not a flaming gun? or maybe a flaming cannon?"

 

[Metalloid]

it's not blind trust or blind faith, he has shown himself to be (at least from my perspective) very caring towards us down here when he could have done otherwise on a whim.

I don't know that, if there is a God, that he has been particularly kind...

Here's an evangelical Christian perspective from an interview on Larry King Live (I realize that this doesn't portray all Christians) :

Larry asked if God could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, and one of the panelists believed that he could have..

I think later on they talk about the tsunami also, with a similar perspective.

It's an interesting interview, check it out.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/01/lkl.01.html

 

[dorian gray]

As for the slavery one, again this is a good example. In those days, they needed this word "slavery" in that verse to descibe what those who were slaves following Christ should do in their situation. now our society no longer tolerates slavery, and the verse can be applied to those in service, as a slave to a master. in this sense, that verse can be applied to those who work for another, like a boss or superior officer, etc. It means to serve, no matter your job, with honor and without complaint (continues the rest of that verse) in so that no matter how good or bad your job may be, your work shows the Glory of God and you serve with joy or gratitude. basically, even if you don't like your job, do your very best.

my understanding, which is, as Jon Snow put it, flawed, is that the Jews *were* slaves - to the Roman Empire. The early Christians (or more appropriately, Jews) were kinda irritated that their savior flaked out on them and thusly decided to use his legacy (of which there was relatively little) for their own public relations bit. When i say he flaked out, i mean that the Jews believed that Jesus would save them, not from sin, but from the fucking Romans, who, along with some other nice folks, had been enslaving them for centuries. Obviously, Jesus had other intentions- namely dying on the cross. But, I happen to believe much of that episode was added later as the early Christians were promoting their new religion - and that key items to Christianity, like the Resurrection, are not historical events. There's an abundance of evidence in support of this view. You should check it out.

 

[Night Mare]

If you stop listening to a band because you're afraid they're evil, you'll end up listening to POD for the rest of your life.

Now shut up, before I set my goat on you!

 

[the_3_toed_sloth]

As for slavery. I can't worship a God that would tolerate the ownership of one human by another.

*recalls story of Moses, and the freedom of the Jews from Egypt*

It just seems silly to me that God made bears came out and maul 42 children. Seems overally harsh for making fun of someone. Yet God can kill innocent children and infants because His own laws are good enough for His people but not Himself?

Yet another reason why literalism is pointless. The moral isn't that if you are a jackass then bears will come maul children; does anyone even really think this story would've actually happened? No, what this is saying is that 'evil' is punished, and it uses hyperbole to say this.

Also, what do you view God as? Is God a male? Are we really made in His image? If so does that mean there is a Holy Penis, Testacles, and Prostate in heaven? Why would God need reproductive organs or a digestive system, etc.? Does He have a rectum and a bladder? Does He have to shit and piss like all of us? He clearly has emotions including wrath. Wrath is one of the seven deadly sins. Does that mean He also feels lust and gluttony?

It is quite clear to me that Man was not created in the image of God but that God was created in the image of Man. Man created God and anthropomorphically gave Him human emotions.

YOU are creating God in the image of Man; don't think that everyone shares your view. I don't think in terms of "God is angry", as that is a human emotion, which we would base on human reasoning. It would be a fair assumption to presume a different system of values, reasoning and emotions to an all-powerful being like God is supposed to be. Image need not really be limited to organs if you think about it either. Maybe it means he made us as creatures of reason, desiring the construction of better ways to organize the world around us. Maybe it means we bear a superficial resemblance to Him. Maybe it means we act in similar ways. Who knows...About the only thing you can assume is that we will not be a photocopy of God, as we pretty obviously lack cool God powers.

 

[Jon Snow]

my understanding, which is, as Jon Snow put it, flawed, is that the Jews *were* slaves - to the Roman Empire. The early Christians (or more appropriately, Jews) were kinda irritated that their savior flaked out on them and thusly decided to use his legacy (of which there was relatively little) for their own public relations bit. When i say he flaked out, i mean that the Jews believed that Jesus would save them, not from sin, but from the fucking Romans, who, along with some other nice folks, had been enslaving them for centuries. Obviously, Jesus had other intentions- namely dying on the cross. But, I happen to believe much of that episode was added later as the early Christians were promoting their new religion - and that key items to Christianity, like the Resurrection, are not historical events. There's an abundance of evidence in support of this view. You should check it out.

Nothing flawed about this.

 

[dorian gray]

Nothing flawed about this.

woo-hoo! confidence restored!
hey, t3ts's last paragraph above is excellent, i think. entirely appropriate and well-thought out. i don't think one can argue those points. those points, however, don't preclude the certain existence of God. As I stated above, an archeological approach to Biblical/Christian/religious claims renders them nearly useless. For example, we *know* for a fact that the Bible is ripped off from older cultures. It is also widely acknowledged by Biblical freakin' scholars that the vast majority of Jesus' story is allegory - not historical fact. Those who choose to believe differently are simply ignoring the facts. I personally don't see what harm there is in that, except when it gets down to brass tacks, Christians are, in all likelihood, completely wrong. It's hard to base a belief system on Christ's Resurrection when it probably didn't happen. This is not my opinion - this is serious Biblical scholarship and archeaological/historical fact.

 

[Kenneth R.]

its not your opinion, but it is the opinion of others. once again, this is why i got into such a serious debate about "fact" and "truth".

i do not believe Christians are in all likelyhood completely wrong. even more i do not believe that the Resurrection "probably didn't happen" nor that these historical "facts" are in any way true. scholars or not, people can be wrong. i simply don't believe them. you can pull as much evidence as you want showing how "wrong" i am, but in turn i can pull just as much showing how "right" i am. that's why this debate still exists. because it has not been settled, and will not be settled. both sides have substantial evidence and in the end, it all breaks down to "which one do you believe in."

 

[NeverIsForever]

Why is God always characterized as male? How would anyone, including the people who came up with the Bible (and yes, I AM implying that I consider the Bible to be fiction) have known this?

 

[Kenneth R.]

the resurrection did not happen. there is "substantial evidence" supporting this. there is virtually no substantial evidence supporting that it happened. end of story.

incorrect.

as for God's identity as "He", i explained this already. he is thought of as the Father of humanity, the guiding master, and so we refer to him as "He" as Jesus himself did, though in actuality he probably doesn't have a gender.

why do people get so worked up about "facts" and trying to find "proof"?


let me save you years of wasted time: you will NEVER find proof that God exists. you will NEVER find proof that he does not. it is all up to personal choice based on the evidence for and against such things. i personally believe that the miracles and acts that are documented in the bible AS WELL AS miracles i have seen with my own eyes are in fact real, and the work of God. you may not. that's fine by me. but don't go telling me my "opinion" is "wrong" because even if you use logic, that's impossible.

 

[Jon Snow]

woo-hoo! confidence restored!

Hahaha. You smartass.

 

[the_3_toed_sloth]

nah i think common sense proves there is no god easily

Uhhh, thanks for your input dude. Its just as absurd to think that the universe spontaneously appeared out of nowhere, and for no real reason life began itself, then alligned itself into various biological systems, then sprouted intelligence, as it is to believe that there was some directing force to this.

Questioning the Bible does not necessarily negate the existence of God remember; only the accuracy of the book. And for all the attacks by athiests that Christians are close-minded, ive met easily as many stupid-as-fuck athiests who refuse to either provide answers (other than a shrug and a murmur about Christianity being stupid) or even question their own views (common sense has a few problems with the idea that life can evolve from chemical reactions..at least mine sure does).

 

[Shadows Skulk]

Uhhh, thanks for your input dude. Its just as absurd to think that the universe spontaneously appeared out of nowhere, and for no real reason life began itself, then alligned itself into various biological systems, then sprouted intelligence, as it is to believe that there was some directing force to this.

argumentum ad lapidem and appeal to incredulity