NationStates Jolt Archive

How do we know what Jesus commanded us to do though? None of the gospels were written by his hand.
Were not the gospels written by men? By the very mortal and fallible apostles of Jesus? Thus, meaning that they scriptures aren't truly the word of God?!

God will have mercy on whom He wills.
So basically God smites or refrains from smiting people for no particular reason at all, other than that he's possibly bored. Good to know the supreme being watching over us is so responsible. :p

Were not the gospels written by men? By the very mortal and fallible apostles of Jesus? Thus, meaning that they scriptures aren't truly the word of God?!

It's all so confusing.

I think you're on to something. Ed really does sound like an abuse victim...
I'm not going to pretend to know whether Ed has experienced abuse in his lifetime, but his language and thought process are positively textbook. I interned at a county domestic abuse service center, and I heard this kind of talk all the time.

Victims would come in to ask us about how they could keep their abuser from hurting the kids, but when we suggested that maybe they should, you know, not stay with somebody who's beating them, they'd go on and on explaining all the reasons why it's not his fault that he's hitting them.

He works so hard, he loves so much, he's such a good guy, he just wants me to be good to him in return! If only I wasn't so stupid/ugly/fat/worthless, then maybe he wouldn't be driven to beat me! I need him, I could never live without him, I'm nothing without him, nobody will ever love me the way he does!

And on, and on.

Now, try asking certain Christians about why their God visits such torments upon His creations, and you'll get pretty much the same answers.

We are sinful and deserve it.

He doesn't want to beat us, we just drive him to it. We ought to know not to make him angry.

His love is perfect and all we will ever need, and it is selfish of us to expect him to show that love through means other than beatings.

We are so lowly and worthless that we actually deserve nothing but an eternity of torture in Hell, but He is graciously allowing us to win freedom from this fate if we are prepared to debase ourselves sufficiently.

Some people are drawn to abusive relationships with other people. Some people, instead, create abusive relationships with their own vision of God. It's the same mentality, it's just pointed in slightly different directions.

Perhaps I am taking this out of context, but this says a lot about your God. A lot. To follow with the abuse victim thing- "He's only beating me. It could be a lot worse."
Oh, yeah, that's another one I heard all the time.

"Heavens no, he doesn't beat me. I mean, he sometimes shoves me a little, or gets a little rough when I make him angry, but he's never put me in the hospital or anything. Never anything worse than a few bruises."

It's all so confusing.
It's not when you realise, it was all written by insecure men who couldn't get laid, or their wives threw them out after they were found having sex with the wife's sister. :D

How do we know what Jesus commanded us to do though? None of the gospels were written by his hand.

That's why the Bible must be infallible. We (Christians) know by faith that Christ died for us (among other things) but the only thing that tells us about it is the Bible, and we as humans are unable to pick and choose what is correct from it, so it must all be correct. And there are various supports for that, all of which are necessary proof, but not sufficient proof.

Since Jesus is God, He commanded many things: 10 Commandments, the moral law, the commandments through Paul, and directly in His sermons.

Why don't you listen to what I'm saying in it's entirety instead of taking the snipets that you want?

That you were not blasted the second you were conceived shows that God is merciful and loving toward you.

I wasn't even quoting you in particular. You just made my point about being self-centered better than I ever could have hoped. Thank you.

So basically God smites or refrains from smiting people for no particular reason at all, other than that he's possibly bored. Good to know the supreme being watching over us is so responsible. :p

No. He has reasons (other than boredom or whim), we are just unable to comprehend them...yet.

<snippy>

Now I know why he reminded me so much of my mother. *lol

I interned at a county domestic abuse service center, and I heard this kind of talk all the time.

Victims would come in to ask us about how they could keep their abuser from hurting the kids, but when we suggested that maybe they should, you know, not stay with somebody who's beating them, they'd go on and on explaining all the reasons why it's not his fault that he's hitting them.

He works so hard, he loves so much, he's such a good guy, he just wants me to be good to him in return! If only I wasn't so stupid/ugly/fat/worthless, then maybe he wouldn't be driven to beat me! I need him, I could never live without him, I'm nothing without him, nobody will ever love me the way he does!

Props to you Bottle for doing this kind of work.

Dealing with the results of the actions of the dregs of humanity is one of the harder jobs any human can do.

I really don't think I could work in such a place (aside from being a very large male, who would be the last sort of person a woman domestic fleeing abuse might want to see) as day in day out dealing with that sort of thing must eat away so much, as well as being so frustrating watching the same women come back a 2nd, 3rd, 4th time.

I could easily see myself snapping one day after a particulary bad case and driving round the the guys place damn the consequences.

I wasn't even quoting you in particular. You just made my point about being self-centered better than I ever could have hoped. Thank you.

I don't know why I responded to you. Your post had nothing to do with my response. I must have clicked to quote the wrong post. I apologize for the confusion: I didn't mean to respond to you.

I'm not going to pretend to know whether Ed has experienced abuse in his lifetime, but his language and thought process are positively textbook. I interned at a county domestic abuse service center, and I heard this kind of talk all the time. I'm not suggesting you are, but now that you've mentioned it, it seems obvious what kind of relationship Edwardis has with his God. As you said, they are the typical textbook example phrases that one would associate with such a relationship, even if you haven't worked with abuse victims before.

That's why the Bible must be infallible. We (Christians) know by faith that Christ died for us (among other things) but the only thing that tells us about it is the Bible, and we as humans are unable to pick and choose what is correct from it, so it must all be correct. And there are various supports for that, all of which are necessary proof, but not sufficient proof.

Since Jesus is God, He commanded many things: 10 Commandments, the moral law, the commandments through Paul, and directly in His sermons.
But the different gospels contradict each other.

You must remember, Pancake, that Edwardis and his ilk don't believe in a loving God, nor indeed do they believe in love at all.

Here's who I meant to respond to.

Originally Posted by Edwardis
Why don't you listen to what I'm saying in it's entirety instead of taking the snipets that you want?

That you were not blasted the second you were conceived shows that God is merciful and loving toward you.

That's why the Bible must be infallible. We (Christians) know by faith that Christ died for us (among other things) but the only thing that tells us about it is the Bible, and we as humans are unable to pick and choose what is correct from it, so it must all be correct. And there are various supports for that, all of which are necessary proof, but not sufficient proof.

Since Jesus is God, He commanded many things: 10 Commandments, the moral law, the commandments through Paul, and directly in His sermons.

But the bible is fallible as proved by the quiz that Upwardthrust linked to on the Bible test page.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0402/biblefactquiz.html

And are you really trying to claim that the only document to prove a historical account of the events around the time of the bible is the bible?

I don't know why I responded to you. Your post had nothing to do with my response. I must have clicked to quote the wrong post. I apologize for the confusion: I didn't mean to respond to you.

http://forums.maxima.org/images/smilies/rofl.gif

But the different gospels contradict each other.

No contradiction has ever been proven. And before we make a whole debate about that, read the verses in context and most of the "contradictions" will disappear.

Here's who I meant to respond to.

You know, Bottle's right. My mom would make the exact same excuse about my father. "The fact that he didn't force me to abort you after all shows that he loves you, doesn't it? So stop complaining about the bruises and try to live up to his love"

No contradiction has ever been proven. And before we make a whole debate about that, read the verses in context and most of the "contradictions" will disappear.Some of the Gospels tell different stories than those that are included in the bible, that's probably why they were left out.

But the bible is fallible as proved by the quiz that Upwardthrust linked to on the Bible test page.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0402/biblefactquiz.html

And are you really trying to claim that the only document to prove a historical account of the events around the time of the bible is the bible?

That's the problem with ultra-literal interpretation. Does the sun move through the sky? Yes, of course, but not in the form of a quarter sized ball that sails through the atmosphere. But, from our visual perception, the sky stays still and the sun moves. Do hills really have hands to clap? No, but they can declare the glory of the Lord.

Some of the Gospels tell different stories than those that are included in the bible, that's probably why they were left out.

"Edited for Clarity":rolleyes:

That's the problem with ultra-literal interpretation. Does the sun move through the sky? Yes, of course, but not in the form of a quarter sized ball that sails through the atmosphere. But, from our visual perception, the sky stays still and the sun moves. Do hills really have hands to clap? No, but they can declare the glory of the Lord.

How?

How?

Say hello to Bob Hill ...

http://www.covers.com/images/2006/180x180/hill_bob060202.jpg

That's the problem with ultra-literal interpretation. Does the sun move through the sky? Yes, of course, but not in the form of a quarter sized ball that sails through the atmosphere. But, from our visual perception, the sky stays still and the sun moves. Do hills really have hands to clap? No, but they can declare the glory of the Lord.

You said the bible is infallible, therefore you must believe that everything in it is literally true and it contains mistakes. If you don't believe everything in the bible is 100% then the bible can't be infallible.

You van't have it both ways sonny-me-lad.

Say hello to Bob Hill ...

http://www.covers.com/images/2006/180x180/hill_bob060202.jpg

Lol, awesome!

You said the bible is infallible, therefore you must believe that everything in it is literally true and it contains mistakes. If you don't believe everything in the bible is 100% then the bible can't be infallible.

You van't have it both ways sonny-me-lad.

of course it's 100% true. But it's literature: it uses literary techniques like metaphor and others.

How?

How what?

of course it's 100% true. But it's literature: it uses literary techniques like metaphor and others.

So who's telling you what is metaphor and what isn't? Is it telling the truth or is it telling a story? Make up your mind.

of course it's 100% true. But it's literature: it uses literary techniques like metaphor and others.

Ah, the famous catagorising a bat as a bird, not a mammel, metaphor. I got you.

So is it all literally true or do we need to interpret parts of it?

of course it's 100% true. But it's literature: it uses literary techniques like metaphor and others.

So the bible may, in places mean, something other than what it says? That must really really suck.

of course it's 100% true. But it's literature: it uses literary techniques like metaphor and others.Hills clapping?

Hills clapping?

It might lose a bit in the translation *shrugs*
Remember the guy who compared boobs to deer?

How what?

How do hills "declare the glory of the Lord"?

It might lose a bit in the translation *shrugs*
Remember the guy who compared boobs to deer?

People cry when bad things happen to either.....

People cry when bad things happen to either.....

Bambi's boobs are dead??!!?? :eek:

Ah, the famous catagorising a bat as a bird, not a mammel, metaphor. I got you.

So is it all literally true or do we need to interpret parts of it?

See it's things like this that anger me: where does it say this? 99.9% of people who reference verses like this have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. I've never seen the Bible call a bat a bird.

It might lose a bit in the translation *shrugs*
Remember the guy who compared boobs to deer?Some people claim that genesis is a metaphor for evolution. Ed is clearly picking and choosing.

Bambi's boobs are dead??!!?? :eek:

No silly. Bambi was a stag. Bambi's mother's boobs are dead.

See it's things like this that anger me: where does it say this? 99.9% of people who reference verses like this have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. I've never seen the Bible call a bat a bird.

Leviticus 11:13-19.....and answer the damn question.

How do hills "declare the glory of the Lord"?

If you were to paint a painting, a masterpiece, rivaling Monet, it would show your skill and handiwork. Same with the hills: they show His glory - His skill, power, creation, providence, etc.

See it's things like this that anger me: where does it say this? 99.9% of people who reference verses like this have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. I've never seen the Bible call a bat a bird.

Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

No. He has reasons (other than boredom or whim), we are just unable to comprehend them...yet.
Back to the abuse victim analogy. "I know he has a good reason for hitting me, although I don't understand it".
[/analogy hijack in progress]
And the crying over bad things happening to deer is false, deer are tasty.

No silly. Bambi was a stag. Bambi's mother's boobs are dead.

*cries
Dead boobs make me sad...

Leviticus 11:13-19.....and answer the damn question.

Does anyone else think that NSG is a bit like Shock Therepy sometimes?

See it's things like this that anger me: where does it say this? 99.9% of people who reference verses like this have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. I've never seen the Bible call a bat a bird.Then you've never read leviticus 11:13-19 then, have you? It's right there, if you look it up:
13 " 'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. [a]

Leviticus 11:13-19.....and answer the damn question.

Well, I never noticed that before. It's easy to read to quickly through the ceremonial Law.

Anyway, either the bat isn't a bat or the bird isn't a bird. Meaning, that we have bird classified scientifically, the ancient Hebrews didn't. So bird would be any creature that flew through the sky. Or a bat was really a bird and the meaning of the word has changed to mean a bat.

Some people claim that genesis is a metaphor for evolution. Ed is clearly picking and choosing.

I've yet to meet a proclaimed Christian that doesn't.

Well, I never noticed that before. It's easy to read to quickly through the ceremonial Law.

Anyway, either the bat isn't a bat or the bird isn't a bird. Meaning, that we have bird classified scientifically, the ancient Hebrews didn't. So bird would be any creature that flew through the sky. Or a bat was really a bird and the meaning of the word has changed to mean a bat.

So the bible is wrong?

Edit: You're really reaching here mate.

*cries
Dead boobs make me sad...

Me too :(

So the bible is wrong?

Why would that make the Bible wrong? The problem comes when you don't read the Bible in context: what was being said? Who was it being said to? Those two things determine the meaning of what is written.

Oh, by the way, this is stretching it a bit, but since Superman is somewhat God-like, plus the allegories in Superman Returns:
http://www.superdickery.com/dick/162.html
-.- :p

Well, I never noticed that before. It's easy to read to quickly through the ceremonial Law.

Anyway, either the bat isn't a bat or the bird isn't a bird. Meaning, that we have bird classified scientifically, the ancient Hebrews didn't. So bird would be any creature that flew through the sky. Or a bat was really a bird and the meaning of the word has changed to mean a bat.

Or maybe the writer simply didn't know that birds lay eggs and have feathers, whereas mammals give birth to living offspring and have hair?

So, either these laws are not from god, or god has some serious chatching-up to do with his creation.

So the bible is wrong?

Edit: You're really reaching here mate.

Oh, he has been for quite a while.
Another classic example of victim behaviour here. The aggressor cannot be wrong, so any excuse will do. When in doubt, claim that the rest of the world simply cannot understand.

Well, I never noticed that before. It's easy to read to quickly through the ceremonial Law.

Anyway, either the bat isn't a bat or the bird isn't a bird. Meaning, that we have bird classified scientifically, the ancient Hebrews didn't. So bird would be any creature that flew through the sky. Or a bat was really a bird and the meaning of the word has changed to mean a bat.
Meaning that evolution took place and that the Bible is bunk.

Or maybe the writer simply didn't know that birds lay eggs and have feathers, whereas mammals give birth to living offspring and have hair?

So, either these laws are not from god, or god has some serious chatching-up to do with his creation.

It;s so hard to keep up with taxonomy(sp?) these days though.

Why would that make the Bible wrong? The problem comes when you don't read the Bible in context: what was being said? Who was it being said to? Those two things determine the meaning of what is written.Maybe you should learn to heed your own advice.

Props to you Bottle for doing this kind of work.

Dealing with the results of the actions of the dregs of humanity is one of the harder jobs any human can do.

I really don't think I could work in such a place (aside from being a very large male, who would be the last sort of person a woman domestic fleeing abuse might want to see) as day in day out dealing with that sort of thing must eat away so much, as well as being so frustrating watching the same women come back a 2nd, 3rd, 4th time.

I could easily see myself driving round to some of these guys places after a particulary bad one and damn the consequences.
I don't know if I could handle going back to work there, simply because it was so discouraging.

It's hard enough to see the results of humans abusing one another, but it's even harder to cope with seeing many of those humans go back for more.

Oddly enough, it wasn't until I met my current partner that I really started to understand that sort of mentality. He'd been brought up in what I would characterize as an abusive religion, and it amazed me how such a smart and delightful person could still carry around so much baggage even after leaving that religion years before.

He explained to me how he was taught to feel guilty for feeling pride, or even personal pleasure, and how he used to sincerely believe that it was selfish of him to feel bad when bad things happened to him. He told me about how he was taught to feel constantly unworthy, as if he were constantly doing wrong and being a bad person, and how it often felt like a relief to be punished for his many sins.

He grew up believing that "love" was a sort of pity. God "loves" us, which means He puts up with our lowly, sinful, filthy selves, even though we really don't deserve so much as the time of day from Him. He sometimes even chooses not to actively hurt us, for which we should be deeply thankful because we deserve to be hurt endlessly. But God is merciful and "loves" us.

If a person has internalized the idea that they do not have worth, it makes sense that they will cease to pursue any real sort of personal fulfillment or happiness. Why should they bother? And why should they bother to object when they are abused? They have no value or purpose of their own, other than to endure abuse, so the only source of identity they can find is as a victim. The only "pride" they have is in their own ability to endure punishment with a smile on their face.

Or maybe the writer simply didn't know that birds lay eggs and have feathers, whereas mammals give birth to living offspring and have hair?

So, either these laws are not from god, or god has some serious chatching-up to do with his creation.

Ever heard of monotremes? They're egg-laying mammals.

But that doesn't change the fact that the Hebrews in their language (the is a possibility since I don't know Hebrew) might have classified a bird as anything that flies. So God was speaking to them in words they would understand. It doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong. It means that our words and catergories have shifted and that we have to look at the Hebrew categories to understand what God was saying.

Meaning that evolution took place and that the Bible is bunk.

Meaning that linguistic evolution took place.

I have to go to class.

Why would that make the Bible wrong? The problem comes when you don't read the Bible in context: what was being said? Who was it being said to? Those two things determine the meaning of what is written.

Nice try, the topic is what animals can and can't be eaten and the writer classifies bats among fowl.

Either the bible is the word of god and, therefore, divine and, therefore, contains no mistakes.

Or it does contain mistakes meaning it is the work of man and not the word of god.

Or possibly it is the word of god and god is fallible making most of the things christians bang on about gods' perfection incorrect.

So what'll it be sparky? Option A, B or C?

Ever heard of monotremes? They're egg-laying mammals.

But that doesn't change the fact that the Hebrews in their language (the is a possibility since I don't know Hebrew) might have classified a bird as anything that flies. So God was speaking to them in words they would understand. It doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong. It means that our words and catergories have shifted and that we have to look at the Hebrew categories to understand what God was saying.

In which case you could possibly have no clue what you're talking about, since you only know the translation, which could be fatally flawed.

Meaning that linguistic evolution took place.
Or that it was mistranslated. After all, men translated the Old Testament into Latin and transcribed it many times, over the centuries, as they did with the New Testament. Which means that something was literally lost in translation and that the Bible you worship so dearly is not in fact the word of God. If it were, God himself would have put it into many languages, but he didn't. It was translated and transcribed by monks, priests, and any other followers of religious orders.

Or that it was mistranslated. After all, men translated the Old Testament into Latin and transcribed it many times, over the centuries, as they did with the New Testament. Which means that something was literally lost in translation and that the Bible you worship so dearly is not in fact the word of God. If it were, God himself would have put it into many languages, but he didn't. It was translated and transcribed by monks, priests, and any other followers of religious orders.

And let's not even get into a discussion that includes the fact that the oldest existing texts--even in the original languages--often don't agree with each other. They're filled with disagreements--some are as simple as spelling errors, but others are major. And then there's the issue of which books made it into the Biblical canon and which ones were left out and why--and the sometimes bloody battles over those issues.

Edwardis and those like him like to act as though there's a Bible sprung whole from the mouth of God and given to His One True Church, but history shows that's just not the case. There was as much politicking and backstabbing in the formation of the early church (and by early, I mean the one Constantine made the Church of Rome, because before that, there were hundreds of little sects, but no unified church) as there was in any other political context that has ever existed.

<snip>
Which is why I count on him retorting with "God said so", or "it is infallible because it is the word of God". I just like being a jackass, but, I do agree with you, nonetheless.

STDs can be a consequence of carelessness but I doubt that someone that's not religious can think of them as a sort of punishment...

i dont see how a punishment for being raped should be aids.

i dont see how a punishment for being raped should be aids.

That's why you're not God ;)

i dont see how a punishment for being raped should be aids.

Well, it goes like this. If you're a woman, it's your duty to accept the man juice willingly, as God wishes. If you don't, and are therefore raped, you are subverting God's will, and are therefore deserving of His punishment, the AIDS.

Makes as much sense as any of this other shit.

i dont see how a punishment for being raped should be aids.
That's because you can't think with your ass. :D

Well, it goes like this. If you're a woman, it's your duty to accept the man juice willingly, as God wishes. If you don't, and are therefore raped, you are subverting God's will, and are therefore deserving of His punishment, the AIDS.

Makes as much sense as any of this other shit.

Absent any shred of civilization, the whim of Nature makes it the female's duty to accept the man juice - willingly or not. Rape is common among animals, even primates (and ducks!).

Deserving has nothing to do with it, nor is there any choice.

Is AIDS a gay disease? No. It is not limited to gays, so therefore it cannot properly be called a gay disease.

Are STDs God's punishment on immoral behavior? Of course. All bad things that happen to us are punishment for our behavior. And they are merciful punishments, too.

Our smallest sin earns us the eternal fire. So, in comparison to that, AIDS isn't so bad. Note, that I do not say that AIDS is to be taken lightly. It is a horrible, horrible disease. But in comparison to eternal damnation, the worst thing that you can think of would be more desirable.

Should we just let disease run rampant because it is God's judgment? No. Our aid to the sick is God's vessel of mercy: He gives us the knowledge to find these helps and cures.

God decides our fate at judgement day why the fuck would he have to punish us in life as well

Eternal punishment apparently is not enough pain for god to inflict

Absent any shred of civilization, the whim of Nature makes it the female's duty to accept the man juice - willingly or not. Rape is common among animals, even primates (and ducks!).

Deserving has nothing to do with it, nor is there any choice.
Erm, actually, Nature doesn't dictate any such thing, any more than Nature dictates that females should kill and devour males after sex simply because this occurs in some species. Nature doesn't "dictate" squat.

Why would you hate to do that?
Because despite the fact that you and I surely disagree on the nuances of Christian theology, I respect you for coming on here day after day and exposing yourself to flaming on these boards for what you believe.


Ummm, no that would be incorrect. Look all through the Old Testament and you will see that God punishes people in time. Look at the New Testament: people are becoming ill because they are misusing Communion.

I would remind you that the Old testament was an earlier dispensation, and there was as yet no Crucifixion. As for yuor New Testament reference, I won't respond until I have looked at it in my Bible, which is not with me here at work.

Oh my goodness, no. That sin, the stealing of the cookies, though some might think it small, earns you eternal damnation! Having food poisoning doesn't compare to that! Jesus death atones for all the penalty of sin, something you cannot suffer through temporal punishment.

Leaving aside the relative severity of individual sin, I would point out that if the ONLY penalty for any sin is eternal damnation, then why wouldn't Jesus have to suffer eternal damnation to atone for them?


Of course, though I don't like the word accept. Alright.


God is not required to treat everyone equally. He will have mercy on whom He wills.
Of course He is. God in Heaven is the God of justice. Without equality of opportunity and consequence, there is no justice.

Sorry for taking so long to respond.

Well, it goes like this. If you're a woman, it's your duty to accept the man juice willingly, as God wishes. If you don't, and are therefore raped, you are subverting God's will, and are therefore deserving of His punishment, the AIDS.

That's sarcasm, right?

Because despite the fact that you and I surely disagree on the nuances of Christian theology, I respect you for coming on here day after day and exposing yourself to flaming on these boards for what you believe.
Look, I'm tired of this crap. Pointing out the logical absurdities of a person's belief system is not flaming. Neither is pointing out the monstrous nature of those beliefs. Neither is pointing out the logical holes so big you could drive a freaking star destroyer through them.

When people make you look stupid, day after day, month after month, maybe you ought to start asking "is it me?" But people who have faith that they're absolutely right about everything rarely stoop to that level of self-examination, because it might cause them to doubt their faith. Whatever--your choice, and Edwardis's, and everyone else's who comes into the world of the internet. Just don't call it flaming.

Look, I'm tired of this crap. Pointing out the logical absurdities of a person's belief system is not flaming. Neither is pointing out the monstrous nature of those beliefs. Neither is pointing out the logical holes so big you could drive a freaking star destroyer through them.

When people make you look stupid, day after day, month after month, maybe you ought to start asking "is it me?" But people who have faith that they're absolutely right about everything rarely stoop to that level of self-examination, because it might cause them to doubt their faith. Whatever--your choice, and Edwardis's, and everyone else's who comes into the world of the internet. Just don't call it flaming.

That knife cuts both ways. There are plenty of people on BOTH sides of this argument who dig in their heels because the alternative to being right is to be wrong with all sorts of devastating consequences attached.

I disagree with Edwardis, yes... But that doesn't mean I have to stomp all over him and use the most mean-spirited language I can think of in order to express that. When people DO get nasty, know what that's called?

Flaming.

Which you ought to know better than most, Nazz.

It never ceases to amaze me how idiotic it is for people to expect to change somebody's mind by trying to beat an opinion into them. Hasn't it ever occurred to you that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar? Or that it might just be possible that a person is more likely to listen open-minded to your point of view if you don't constantly state it as a long-winded insult?

Erm, actually, Nature doesn't dictate any such thing, any more than Nature dictates that females should kill and devour males after sex simply because this occurs in some species. Nature doesn't "dictate" squat.

"Dictate" in the sense that there's little to prevent it - and it does occur widely amongst most species that have the two sexes.

Oh, and there's nothing to stop the females from eating the males - that's fairly common, too.

That's sarcasm, right?

Obviously.

I think that disease is a blessing in disguise and may be divine in origin. Man is overpopulating the Earth. The Lord has to come up with new diseases to keep our population in check. I do not think that just because someone gets a disease that this is somehow a personal punishment. The Lord does not seem to make diseases that single individual people out in a miraculous way that never kills the really big sinners amongst us. If he did then he would not be following his modus operandi of encouraging faith and its twin brother doubt.

Yeah the wicked Africans are getting decimated and it is great because so many of them are poachers and rapists and really nasty folks. Yeah the gays are getting the AIDS and they vote democrat and violate the laws of the Old Testament with ardour. But there are a lot of decent folks that get AIDS and other diseases too.

Erm, actually, Nature doesn't dictate any such thing, any more than Nature dictates that females should kill and devour males after sex simply because this occurs in some species. Nature doesn't "dictate" squat.

nature dictaes i eat.

I think that disease is a blessing in disguise and may be divine in origin. Man is overpopulating the Earth. The Lord has to come up with new diseases to keep our population in check. I do not think that just because someone gets a disease that this is somehow a personal punishment. The Lord does not seem to make diseases that single individual people out in a miraculous way that never kills the really big sinners amongst us. If he did then he would not be following his modus operandi of encouraging faith and its twin brother doubt.

Yeah the wicked Africans are getting decimated and it is great because so many of them are poachers and rapists and really nasty folks. Yeah the gays are getting the AIDS and they vote democrat and violate the laws of the Old Testament with ardour. But there are a lot of decent folks that get AIDS and other diseases too.

Oh your god does not like singling people out
Wtf happened with soddam and gamorah then

And large scale massacres of women and children don't seem to be a problem for him. The flood

That knife cuts both ways. There are plenty of people on BOTH sides of this argument who dig in their heels because the alternative to being right is to be wrong with all sorts of devastating consequences attached.

I disagree with Edwardis, yes... But that doesn't mean I have to stomp all over him and use the most mean-spirited language I can think of in order to express that. When people DO get nasty, know what that's called?

Flaming.

Which you ought to know better than most, Nazz.

It never ceases to amaze me how idiotic it is for people to expect to change somebody's mind by trying to beat an opinion into them. Hasn't it ever occurred to you that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar? Or that it might just be possible that a person is more likely to listen open-minded to your point of view if you don't constantly state it as a long-winded insult?
Look, you were the one who said Edwardis subjects himself to flaming. I'm saying that description is crap. Edwardis subjects himself to discussion. I'm not out to convince Edwardis--he wouldn't listen regardless of how nicely I phrased my sentences. I'm trying to limit the damage to others by pointing out how ludicrous his extreme positions are. But even that isn't flaming. Flaming is making a personal attack. I'm attacking positions and points of view and attitudes.

nature dictaes i eat.
Nature doesn't give a crap whether you eat or not. If you don't eat, you'll die, and Nature will be just as fine with that as if you'd eaten and not died. Nature does not have any particular opinion about your life, death, or sexual behaviors.

"Nature" is the physical rules that govern the cause-and-effect realities of our lives. If you do not consume fuel for your body, you will die. That's nature. Whether or not your death is a "good thing" or a "bad thing" is not defined by nature.

STDs can be a consequence of carelessness but I doubt that someone that's not religious can think of them as a sort of punishment...
That is a fair argument. After all, when we make a choice, if we don't make the right choice, we are subject to the results of the stupidity of our actions. We take a chance.

It's like crossing a busy street between the traffic lights. You know there are traffic lights nearby, but it's faster to cross where you're standing. You take a gamble and hope that cars don't hit you. You wait and see that it's clear. You think it's clear, but you're not counting on the asshole driving like a maniac...

There are many outcomes in this. They all depend on various factors.

nature dictaes i eat.
Nature dictates I go to the nearest toilet! :D

Nature doesn't give a crap whether you eat or not. If you don't eat, you'll die, and Nature will be just as fine with that as if you'd eaten and not died. Nature does not have any particular opinion about your life, death, or sexual behaviors.

"Nature" is the physical rules that govern the cause-and-effect realities of our lives. If you do not consume fuel for your body, you will die. That's nature. Whether or not your death is a "good thing" or a "bad thing" is not defined by nature.

i'm pretty sure nature wants me to live. i'm great.

Look, you were the one who said Edwardis subjects himself to flaming. I'm saying that description is crap. Edwardis subjects himself to discussion. I'm not out to convince Edwardis--he wouldn't listen regardless of how nicely I phrased my sentences. I'm trying to limit the damage to others by pointing out how ludicrous his extreme positions are. But even that isn't flaming. Flaming is making a personal attack. I'm attacking positions and points of view and attitudes.

I wish that were true. I wish people did just come on here and discuss without getting riled and taking things personally. Fact is, they get nasty, they overreact, and they flame each other.

I know what you mean when you say that you're trying to limit damage by pointing out what you feel are grossly over the top statements, but the fact is, if those statements are grossly over the top, that should be generally self-evident. It's up to the people who read the posts to evaluate that for themselves, and no matter how big a hammer you use to hit those opinions, you're not going to convince these readers either way. You will only galvanize people to whatever point of view they already subscribe to.

Since everyone can get STDs and AIDs, and not just the gays, then I would say no.

no they're normally in the closet.

STDs can be a consequence of carelessness but I doubt that someone that's not religious can think of them as a sort of punishment...

oh no?
Never had a friend that you land up saying:
"Dude i told you she/he was a skank! but did you listen???"

no they're normally in the closet.

Um what are you basing that fact on?

I think that disease is a blessing in disguise and may be divine in origin. Man is overpopulating the Earth. The Lord has to come up with new diseases to keep our population in check. I do not think that just because someone gets a disease that this is somehow a personal punishment. The Lord does not seem to make diseases that single individual people out in a miraculous way that never kills the really big sinners amongst us. If he did then he would not be following his modus operandi of encouraging faith and its twin brother doubt.

Yeah the wicked Africans are getting decimated and it is great because so many of them are poachers and rapists and really nasty folks. Yeah the gays are getting the AIDS and they vote democrat and violate the laws of the Old Testament with ardour. But there are a lot of decent folks that get AIDS and other diseases too.You're a bad person. :(

You're a bad person. :(
Let Reverend Kilmister (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12005461&postcount=75) handle this one as well...

You're a bad person. :(

Why am I so bad? All I (at least meant ) to say is that diseases are the Lord's way of keeping the human population in check and that his diseases are tools for population control instead of punishments for sin.

Why am I so bad? All I (at least meant ) to say is that diseases are the Lord's way of keeping the human population in check and that his diseases are tools for population control instead of punishments for sin.If that was all you meant to say, why did you add the racist and/or bigotted comments about Africans and homosexuals?

I would remind you that the Old testament was an earlier dispensation, and there was as yet no Crucifixion. As for yuor New Testament reference, I won't respond until I have looked at it in my Bible, which is not with me here at work.

Dispensationalism is heresy. They were under a different covenant (note the small c) but they were still under the same Covenant (note the large c) that Christians are, the Covenant of Grace.

Leaving aside the relative severity of individual sin, I would point out that if the ONLY penalty for any sin is eternal damnation, then why wouldn't Jesus have to suffer eternal damnation to atone for them?

Jesus took on the sins of the world, but He was perfect. He broke the system, leaving a hole that the elect can be pulled out through (that's a very weak illustration, but it gets the point across).

Of course He is. God in Heaven is the God of justice. Without equality of opportunity and consequence, there is no justice.

That's not what Scripture says: "I will have mercy on whom I will and whom I will I will harden."

You must remember, Pancake, that Edwardis and his ilk don't believe in a loving God, nor indeed do they believe in love at all.

They only believe in the love of Jesus Christ.....

who, by the way, was NOT sexist or homophobic. I wish Christians would actually LISTEN to their Christ. :(

They only believe in the love of Jesus Christ.....

who, by the way, was NOT sexist or homophobic. I wish Christians would actually LISTEN to their Christ. :(

Well, I think this sums it up quite well...

"I like Jesus' style, but his followers were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting things that ruins it for me."

Well, I think this sums it up quite well...

I agree with John Lennon. Not to mention Ghandi...

I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are nothing like your Christ.

They only believe in the love of Jesus Christ.....

who, by the way, was NOT sexist or homophobic. I wish Christians would actually LISTEN to their Christ. :(

Though I can understand the confusion ... because Jesus apparently did not actually write anything, it was all recorded by a few guys, some of whom ARE sexist

Hard to justify picking and choosing

Um what are you basing that fact on?

well...
if people actually agree with the title of this thread STDs a punishment for being gay, then someone has to represent them on this sight, since they're still stuck in the dark ages and probably think computers are the work of satan.

then they will just infect innocent people ..........................................................:rolleyes:

then they will just infect innocent people ..........................................................:rolleyes:

Shhh... no they don't. Only evil sinners get the STDs. ;)

(just kidding)

Shhh... no they don't. Only evil sinners get the STDs. ;)

(just kidding)

Well, we're all evil sinners, so obviously that's false.

Well, we're all evil sinners, so obviously that's false.

I'm not.

I'm not.

Do you sin? Yes, because you don't do things required in God's Law and you do things which you are commanded not to do.

So, you are a sinner. Are you against God? Naturally, yes. If you hate the God of the Bible, or don't accept Him as He has revealed Himself (Trinity, omniscient, omnipotent, etc.) then you are evil.

So, you're an evil sinner. As am I. As is everyone else to have ever lived (except Jesus).

Do you sin? Yes, because you don't do things required in God's Law and you do things which you are commanded not to do.

So, you are a sinner. Are you against God? Naturally, yes. If you hate the God of the Bible, or don't accept Him as He has revealed Himself (Trinity, omniscient, omnipotent, etc.) then you are evil.

So, you're an evil sinner. As am I. As is everyone else to have ever lived (except Jesus).

And round and round we go. So god made GNI an evil sinner just to get his kicks out of punishing GNI for eternity. Yay God!!!

Well, we're all evil sinners, so obviously that's false.
Not me. I never sin. God told me so.

I'm not.

of course you know that you are ;)

you can check with your wife for confirmation. :p (too far? *backs up* )

Not me. I never sin. God told me so.

Then your god is not God. It's a demon or your own desires.

Do you sin? Yes, because you don't do things required in God's Law and you do things which you are commanded not to do.

So, you are a sinner. Are you against God? Naturally, yes. If you hate the God of the Bible, or don't accept Him as He has revealed Himself (Trinity, omniscient, omnipotent, etc.) then you are evil.

So, you're an evil sinner. As am I. As is everyone else to have ever lived (except Jesus).

Do I sin? No. And you can't prove I do.

What do I do that I was 'commanded not to'?

What don't I do that is 'required in God's law'?

Am I against God? As an Atheist, I'd have to say I was 'against' God in the same way you are 'against' Santa Claus.

I don't 'hate' god... that would be a ridiculous attitude. Do you hate Rudolph the Rednosed Reindeer?

DO I refuse to accept God as he has revealed himself? No - he has not revealed himself to me. In all honesty, I don't think he has revealed himself to you, either... I think you have just been way too gullible with the first century version of "Harry Potter". A book can never 'reveal' God... only what man THINKS is revealed about god.

So - I am no sinner. And, I certainly am not evil.

You might be - you are welcome to think yourself evil if it helps you sleep nights. But I follow a different path, and I do no evil. Whatever floats your boat.

of course you know that you are ;)

you can check with your wife for confirmation. :p (too far? *backs up* )

Hey - what goes on in our bedroom, kitchen, on the couch... is all sanctioned in matrimony. The Bible encourages marital sexuality... and it doesn't rule out which positions are acceptable. ;)

Then your god is not God. It's a demon or your own desires.My God is so God. Yours is obviously some form of paranoia, though.

Edwardis, are you Corny?

Then your god is not God. It's a demon or your own desires.

And, I know a lot of Christians that don't accept YOUR vision of their god.

That's the problem with the 'no-true-scotsman' fallacy. (Or, no-true-scotsgod?)

Edwardis, are you Corny?

He does seem a little passionate... oh, wait... sorry, misread that...

Hey - what goes on in our bedroom, kitchen, on the couch... is all sanctioned in matrimony. The Bible encourages marital sexuality... and it doesn't rule out which positions are acceptable. ;)

you know that's not what I meant......I can't judge you for those things, you know what the Bible says "Judge not lest ye be judged by the same measure"

it would be the same as me picking the speck from your eye.......but you already know that
*goes to get ready for Thursday afternoon quickie*

Well, we're all evil sinners, so obviously that's false.
Speak for yourself.

Edwardis, are you Corny?

Who?

you know that's not what I meant......I can't judge you for those things, you know what the Bible says "Judge not lest ye be judged by the same measure"

it would be the same as me picking the speck from your eye.......but you already know that
*goes to get ready for Thursday afternoon quickie*

Oh, I know.

But, you left yourself wide open. Err.. so to speak. :o
*Smunkee rocks*

AIDS brings the connotation of "gay" because most commericals for STD protection emphasize safe sex for homosexual couple, especially males. Diseases don't care what sex they infect. If someone's going to have sex, no matter what orientation they are or what kind of sex it is, they are at risk for any STD.

Do I sin? No. And you can't prove I do.

What do I do that I was 'commanded not to'?

What don't I do that is 'required in God's law'?

Am I against God? As an Atheist, I'd have to say I was 'against' God in the same way you are 'against' Santa Claus.

I don't 'hate' god... that would be a ridiculous attitude. Do you hate Rudolph the Rednosed Reindeer?

DO I refuse to accept God as he has revealed himself? No - he has not revealed himself to me. In all honesty, I don't think he has revealed himself to you, either... I think you have just been way too gullible with the first century version of "Harry Potter". A book can never 'reveal' God... only what man THINKS is revealed about god.

So - I am no sinner. And, I certainly am not evil.

You might be - you are welcome to think yourself evil if it helps you sleep nights. But I follow a different path, and I do no evil. Whatever floats your boat.

This arguement is ridiculous. I understand that you are atheist and am not attacking you, but I, as a Christian, see everyone as a sinner. You aren't against God; I understand this, but our faith teaches that everyone, whether they are of our religion or not is a sinner. Sinning is simply falling short of God by not being able to follow his Word aka commandments (and not just the 10 Commandments).
I can prove that you are a sinner in our religion. Not believing God marks you as a sinner, but God teaches us to accept and not judge you because of your beliefs because we all sin. (Myself, especially.) Because we are human, we cannot escape sin. Sin is not the same as evil; neither is atheism or any other religion for that matter. In my church it is taught that all the religions are equal and most worship the same God so each deserves the same amount of respect, atheism inculded.
As long as you have supportable reasons to backup your faith, it doesn't matter, as long as the reasons encourage the good of all man.

This arguement is ridiculous. I understand that you are atheist and am not attacking you, but I, as a Christian, see everyone as a sinner. You aren't against God; I understand this, but our faith teaches that everyone, whether they are of our religion or not is a sinner. Sinning is simply falling short of God by not being able to follow his Word aka commandments (and not just the 10 Commandments).
I can prove that you are a sinner in our religion. Not believing God marks you as a sinner, but God teaches us to accept and not judge you because of your beliefs because we all sin. (Myself, especially.) Because we are human, we cannot escape sin. Sin is not the same as evil; neither is atheism or any other religion for that matter. In my church it is taught that all the religions are equal and most worship the same God so each deserves the same amount of respect, atheism inculded.
As long as you have supportable reasons to backup your faith, it doesn't matter, as long as the reasons encourage the good of all man.

John 14:6 "I [Jesus] am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me."

Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

John 14:6 "I [Jesus] am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me."

Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

That's nice. Now prove what the bible says is true.

Because once again I'm about to bust out my mystical post it note that says otherwise.

That's nice. Now prove what the bible says is true.

Because once again I'm about to bust out my mystical post it note that says otherwise.

This can explain much better than I can:

"Why do Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, sixty-six books that together reveal God's redemption through Jesus Christ the Savior? The answer is that God Himself has confirmed this through what is called the "inward witness of the Holy Spirit." In the words of the Westminster Confession (1647):

we may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, not withstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts (Westminster Confession 1.5).

The Spirit's witness to Scripture is like His witness to Jesus, which we find spoken of in John 15:26 and 1 John 5:7 (cf 1 John 2:20,27). It is not a matter of imparting new information, but of enlightening otherwise darkened minds to discern divinity through sensing its unique impact - the impact in the one case of the Jesus of the gospel, and in the other case of the words of Holy Scripture. The Spirit shines in our hearts to give us the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6), but also the light of His glory in the teaching of Holy Scripture. The result of this witness is a state of mind in which both the Savior and the Scriptures have evidenced themselves to us as divine - Jesus, a divine person; Scripture, a divine word - in a way as direct and immediate as the way tastes and colors impress themselves on our senses. As a result, we no longer find it possible to doubt the divinity of Christ or the divine origin of the Bible.

God Himslef authenticates Holy Scripture to us as His Word, going beyond human argument (strong as this may be), and the church's testimony (impressive as this is). God does it, rather, by opening our hearts and enlightening our minds to perceive the searching light and transforming power whereby Scripture evidences itself to be divine. This impact is itself the Spirit's witness "by and with the Word in our hearts." Argument, testimony from others, and our own particular experiences may support and clarify this witness, but the imparting of it, like the impartin faith in Christ's divine Saviorhood, is the prerogative of the sovereign Holy Spirit alone."

John 14:6 "I [Jesus] am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me."

Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

And you honestly believe that the 'name' is the important part?

This can explain much better than I can:

"Why do Christians believe that the Bible is the Word of God, sixty-six books that together reveal God's redemption through Jesus Christ the Savior? The answer is that God Himself has confirmed this through what is called the "inward witness of the Holy Spirit." In the words of the Westminster Confession (1647):

we may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the holy Scripture; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, not withstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts (Westminster Confession 1.5).

The Spirit's witness to Scripture is like His witness to Jesus, which we find spoken of in John 15:26 and 1 John 5:7 (cf 1 John 2:20,27). It is not a matter of imparting new information, but of enlightening otherwise darkened minds to discern divinity through sensing its unique impact - the impact in the one case of the Jesus of the gospel, and in the other case of the words of Holy Scripture. The Spirit shines in our hearts to give us the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6), but also the light of His glory in the teaching of Holy Scripture. The result of this witness is a state of mind in which both the Savior and the Scriptures have evidenced themselves to us as divine - Jesus, a divine person; Scripture, a divine word - in a way as direct and immediate as the way tastes and colors impress themselves on our senses. As a result, we no longer find it possible to doubt the divinity of Christ or the divine origin of the Bible.

God Himslef authenticates Holy Scripture to us as His Word, going beyond human argument (strong as this may be), and the church's testimony (impressive as this is). God does it, rather, by opening our hearts and enlightening our minds to perceive the searching light and transforming power whereby Scripture evidences itself to be divine. This impact is itself the Spirit's witness "by and with the Word in our hearts." Argument, testimony from others, and our own particular experiences may support and clarify this witness, but the imparting of it, like the impartin faith in Christ's divine Saviorhood, is the prerogative of the sovereign Holy Spirit alone."

You realise, most people won't even bother to read a post you copied from elsewhere, right?

Not much of a witness....

This arguement is ridiculous. I understand that you are atheist and am not attacking you, but I, as a Christian, see everyone as a sinner. You aren't against God; I understand this, but our faith teaches that everyone, whether they are of our religion or not is a sinner. Sinning is simply falling short of God by not being able to follow his Word aka commandments (and not just the 10 Commandments).
I can prove that you are a sinner in our religion. Not believing God marks you as a sinner, but God teaches us to accept and not judge you because of your beliefs because we all sin. (Myself, especially.) Because we are human, we cannot escape sin. Sin is not the same as evil; neither is atheism or any other religion for that matter. In my church it is taught that all the religions are equal and most worship the same God so each deserves the same amount of respect, atheism inculded.
As long as you have supportable reasons to backup your faith, it doesn't matter, as long as the reasons encourage the good of all man.

Not believing God doesn't mark you as a sinner... it marks you as a child. Maybe not a child in 'age', but certainly a child in belief.

Now - how did Jesus recommend we punish the child?

He didn't, did he - he said it was the child that was the model for heaven.

And you honestly believe that the 'name' is the important part?

No, otherwise we ought to call Him Yeshua. It's the Person who is represented by the name.

Not believing God doesn't mark you as a sinner... it marks you as a child. Maybe not a child in 'age', but certainly a child in belief.

Now - how did Jesus recommend we punish the child?

He didn't, did he - he said it was the child that was the model for heaven.

No, it marks you as unborn in belief.

You realise, most people won't even bother to read a post you copied from elsewhere, right?

Not much of a witness....

It wasn't a post I copied. And I have gone through this conversation too many times to count. So, by giving someone else's words, I am removing confusion that may be in my explanation (which is apt to happen).

No, otherwise we ought to call Him Yeshua. It's the Person who is represented by the name.

So... if I am raised knowing the name 'Allah', but - on a spiritual level, 'Allah' and God/Jesus are just aspects of the same thing...?

No, it marks you as unborn in belief.

I disagree. The gift of discernment is often argued as a gift for the believer. If the Atheist lacks discernment, he/she cannot be held 'responsible' for his/her unbelief. He/she is capable of believing, but lacks the spiritual tools.

Like a child.

So... if I am raised knowing the name 'Allah', but - on a spiritual level, 'Allah' and God/Jesus are just aspects of the same thing...?

But, they aren't. If you are worshiping the God revealed in the Bible and calling Him Allah (because you speak Arabic), then you are worshiping the same God. But if you are worshiping any other god than He who is revealed in the Bible, you are not worshiping God and are guilty of idolatry.

It wasn't a post I copied. And I have gone through this conversation too many times to count. So, by giving someone else's words, I am removing confusion that may be in my explanation (which is apt to happen).

Not copied? Your real name is "Westminster Confessions (1647), then?

I disagree. The gift of discernment is often argued as a gift for the believer. If the Atheist lacks discernment, he/she cannot be held 'responsible' for his/her unbelief. He/she is capable of believing, but lacks the spiritual tools.

Like a child.

Well, that's not what the Bible says.

Not copied? Your real name is "Westminster Confessions (1647), then?

Did you even read my post?

Do you know what the Westminster Confession is? Apparently not. I quoted a study section from my Bible. I did not copy another poster.

But, they aren't. If you are worshiping the God revealed in the Bible and calling Him Allah (because you speak Arabic), then you are worshiping the same God. But if you are worshiping any other god than He who is revealed in the Bible, you are not worshiping God and are guilty of idolatry.

ANd, if you believe that God could have a mortal son, then you are guilty of idolatry according to the old testament. You worship your own idols, you are hardly in a place to point to anyone elses.

If you are raised worshipping Allah, and have never encountered the Bible... you are worshipping the one true god, in every supportable way of faith available and knowable.

But, you seem to think you can determine what is an acceptable 'form' for God to take. I believe they call that sin 'pride'.

Well, that's not what the Bible says.

I'm not going to take your word for it, I'm afraid. Since you accept the 'tradition' rather than the 'meaning' of text, I value your interpretation of scripture about as much as I would value a genital disease.

I think the Bible supports what I am saying.

Did you even read my post?

Do you know what the Westminster Confession is? Apparently not. I quoted a study section from my Bible. I did not copy another poster.

No, of course I didn't read your post.

When you preface an 'argument' with "This can explain much better than I can:" it is painfully transparent that you are about to present someone else's words instead of your own. The problem is - I'm not debating with 'them', I don't care what 'they' say.

Also - I have to point out - I didn't say you copied another poster, I just said you copied... and you just admitted it. You have no legs left to stand on.

ANd, if you believe that God could have a mortal son, then you are guilty of idolatry according to the old testament. You worship your own idols, you are hardly in a place to point to anyone elses.

If you are raised worshipping Allah, and have never encountered the Bible... you are worshipping the one true god, in every supportable way of faith available and knowable.

But, you seem to think you can determine what is an acceptable 'form' for God to take. I believe they call that sin 'pride'.

I know, because God explains in the Bible.

How am I guilty of idolatry according to the Old Testament? I am not. Remember the Trinity?

Your whole stance on who a Muslim worships is false.

Romans 1:18-25 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of God for images resmbling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen."

And before you say that Muslims forbid idols, they are serving a dumbed-down God. Rather than serve the eternal God, they made a God with many of the same qualities, but remove those which they could not understand, namely, the Trinity and the incarnation of Jesus, among others.

No, of course I didn't read your post.

When you preface an 'argument' with "This can explain much better than I can:" it is painfully transparent that you are about to present someone else's words instead of your own. The problem is - I'm not debating with 'them', I don't care what 'they' say.

Also - I have to point out - I didn't say you copied another poster, I just said you copied... and you just admitted it. You have no legs left to stand on.

Look at post number 377. And I don't care who you're arguing with. It's more important that you understand than who makes you understand.

I didn't want to do this, but I have to.

You haved based your faith on the idea that the bible is true. You believe it to be true because you believe it to be the ordained word of god. You believe it to be the ordained word of god because it says it is.

Well, I am sorry to tell you of my magical mythical post-it note that I bring out whenever someone claims that their holy book is true because it says it is. The note reads: "Every religion in the world is wrong. God."

I'm not going to take your word for it, I'm afraid. Since you accept the 'tradition' rather than the 'meaning' of text, I value your interpretation of scripture about as much as I would value a genital disease.

I think the Bible supports what I am saying.

Matthew 19:13-15 "Then children were brought to him [Jesus] that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." And he laid his hands on them and went away."

Not much evidence to support your theory. But let's see how other sections of the Bible might clarify.

John 1:12,13 "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood, nor the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God."

And Mark tells more of what happened at the event than what Matthew says

Mark 10:15 "Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

So the atheist doesn't fit, becuase he refuses to receive in any manner, much less as a child.

Luke's account is the same as Mark's.

I didn't want to do this, but I have to.

You haved based your faith on the idea that the bible is true. You believe it to be true because you believe it to be the ordained word of god. You believe it to be the ordained word of god because it says it is.

Well, I am sorry to tell you of my magical mythical post-it note that I bring out whenever someone claims that their holy book is true because it says it is. The note reads: "Every religion in the world is wrong. God."

I shudder at the wisdom of your words. :rolleyes:

I know, because God explains in the Bible.

How am I guilty of idolatry according to the Old Testament? I am not. Remember the Trinity?


Show me a single verse of the Hebrew scripture that so much as mentions 'the Trinity'.

You can't because the concept of the trinity is anathema to the Law.


Your whole stance on who a Muslim worships is false.


No more than your own?


And before you say that Muslims forbid idols, they are serving a dumbed-down God. Rather than serve the eternal God, they made a God with many of the same qualities, but remove those which they could not understand.

Sounds like Jesus, no?

"Let the children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

Cutting through the bullshit.

Look at post number 377. And I don't care who you're arguing with. It's more important that you understand than who makes you understand.

Then you are wasting both of our time.

For all the people haven't worked it out yet, HIV is Human Immunodeficiency Virus, and Aids is Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

You catch the virus (HIV) from other people, and you may (but not necessarily will) as a result contract the disease, Aids. If you carry the virus you are called HIV positive, but that doesn't mean that you have Aids. Of course, many (probably most) people who are HIV-positive go on to contract Aids, but not everybody does.

Show me a single verse of the Hebrew scripture that so much as mentions 'the Trinity'.

You can't because the concept of the trinity is anathema to the Law.

Genesis 1:26-27 "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and other the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps all over the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them both."

The name use to refer to God in the Old Testament in Elohim, a plural noun for one God.

Isaiah the Prophet refers to the Messiah as the "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God...." in Isaiah 9:6. But He also says in Isaiah that the Messiah will be "wounded for our transgressions," "crushed for our iniquities," and that "with his stripes we are healed." How God can be wounded, crushed and suffer stripes is only explained through a triune God.


Sounds like Jesus, no?

No, if anything, Jesus makes things more complicated and harder to understand.

Cutting through the bullshit.

So, you pick and choose to support your ideas. Fine, your allowed, but:

Matthew 9:19 "Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven..."

Then your god is not God. It's a demon or your own desires.

Do you get kicks out of this?
The way you describe your god, he must be a demon. Not the other way around.

Do you get kicks out of this?
The way you describe your god, he must be a demon. Not the other way around.

No, God created the angels and demons are fallen angels, so God cannot be a demon.

Genesis 1:26-27 "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and other the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps all over the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them both."

The name use to refer to God in the Old Testament in Elohim, a plural noun for one God.

Isaiah the Prophet refers to the Messiah as the "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God...." in Isaiah 9:6. But He also says in Isaiah that the Messiah will be "wounded for our transgressions," "crushed for our iniquities," and that "with his stripes we are healed." How God can be wounded, crushed and suffer stripes is only explained through a triune God.




No, if anything, Jesus makes things more complicated and harder to understand.

BS. Elohim is also used in Exodus 20:3 to denote the plurality of many Gods (Thou shalt have no other gods before me). It's also used in Gen. 6:2, Ex. 4:16, Ex. 22:28 in alternative contexts. It doesn't have one fixed usage.

No, God created the angels and demons are fallen angels, so God cannot be a demon.

I never said he was. I said you are worshipping one, apparenty.

So, you pick and choose to support your ideas. Fine, your allowed, but:

Matthew 9:19 "Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven..."

So since Jesus recognized that all the OT laws and commandments were still in effect, do you denounce people for wearing mixed cloth, shaving their beards or eating shellfish?

BS. Elohim is also used in Exodus 20:3 to denote the plurality of many Gods (Thou shalt have no other gods before me). It's also used in Gen. 6:2, Ex. 4:16, Ex. 22:28 in alternative contexts. It doesn't have one fixed usage.

But it is used to describe the One God of the Bible, also.

And as for the plurality of gods, I will agree, there are many. But the Bible is clear that there is but one true God, all the others are of human invention.

But it is used to describe the One God of the Bible, also.

And as for the plurality of gods, I will agree, there are many. But the Bible is clear that there is but one true God, all the others are of human invention.

Nice dodge. That doesn't answer the question of the usage of the trinity though. Change topics elsewhere.

So since Jesus recognized that all the OT laws and commandments were still in effect, do you denounce people for wearing mixed cloth, shaving their beards or eating shellfish?

The ceremonial law (clean vs. unclean and the sacrifices) was abrogated at Christ's death. The moral law is still in effect.

But it is used to describe the One God of the Bible, also.

And as for the plurality of gods, I will agree, there are many. But the Bible is clear that there is but one true God, all the others are of human invention.

And the Bhagavad Gita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad-Gita#Influence_of_the_Bhagavad_Gita) claims there are hundreds of gods. That could just as easily be true.

The ceremonial law (clean vs. unclean and the sacrifices) was abrogated at Christ's death. The moral law is still in effect.

Really? Where in the bible does it say that?

And the Bhagavad Gita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad-Gita#Influence_of_the_Bhagavad_Gita) claims there are hundreds of gods. That could just as easily be true.

See, now technically you could recognize all those gods as long as you worshipped the Judeo-Christian one as the #1.

(no other gods before me)

See, now technically you could recognize all those gods as long as you worshipped the Judeo-Christian one as the #1.

(no other gods before me)

Hehe... might be just as well, to cover all your bases if you do indeed feel the need of some sort of salvation ;)

Nice dodge. That doesn't answer the question of the usage of the trinity though. Change topics elsewhere.

I didn't change topics. Well, I guess I did, but not intentionally. I was just clarifying my position on the one thing. I didn't mean for it to change to course of the conversation.

Anyway, Elohim is used to describe the One God, then there needs to be some explaining. The Trinity explains it, but so does the majestic plural. This is just one thing to support the idea of the Trinity. Same with the refernces in the Genesis and the references in the Prophets for having God suffer and die, and calling Him the be called "the Son of Man" and many other things. The Trinity answers them much better than any other explanation. And those are only the supports from the Old Testament.

I didn't change topics. Well, I guess I did, but not intentionally. I was just clarifying my position on the one thing. I didn't mean for it to change to course of the conversation.

Anyway, Elohim is used to describe the One God, then there needs to be some explaining. The Trinity explains it, but so does the majestic plural. This is just one thing to support the idea of the Trinity. Same with the refernces in the Genesis and the references in the Prophets for having God suffer and die, and calling Him the be called "the Son of Man" and many other things. The Trinity answers them much better than any other explanation. And those are only the supports from the Old Testament.

That doesn't answer the question. Where in the Bible is the trinity mentioned? Plurality /= 3 in every situation.

I shudder at the wisdom of your words. :rolleyes:

You should. Know why? Because you can't demonstrate that my wonderous and mystical post-it note is any more, or any less the "word of god" than the bible is.

Really? Where in the bible does it say that?

Read Hebrews chapters 7-10. It's too much for me to put on here and the theme is strung across the chapter: I can't really pull out one or two verses to make my point.

But in this section of the Bible Paul speaks of the law, refering always to the ceremonial things of the of the Old Testament and saying how they were pointing to Jesus' death and resurrection. Now that He has come, has died, and has risen, they are no longer needed.

But through the rest of the Bible, everyone speaks of the law and how it will stand for as long as this world, always referring to the moral things: no stealing, no adultery, etc.

That doesn't answer the question. Where in the Bible is the trinity mentioned? Plurality /= 3 in every situation.

That did answer the original question, which was where in the Old Testament is there support for the Trinity.

But there is also in the New Testament.

In Matthew 3:13-17 Jesus has just been baptized and He is standing on the bank of the Jordan. The Holy Spirit descends as a dove and rest on His shoulder as a voice from heaven [the Father] says "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Then at the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) Jesus commands His disciples to baptise "...in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." He does not say names, neither does He give a name to each. It's one name for all three. And we know that God has revealed to us everything that we need to know about Him for this life (The verse escapes me, sorry.), so we know that to worship God as He has revealed Himself, we must worship a Trinity. If there is more, God did not see that we needed to know it to worship Him properly, so He did not tell us. But that also means that we are not to add, either.

Read Hebrews chapters 7-10. It's too much for me to put on here and the theme is strung across the chapter: I can't really pull out one or two verses to make my point.

But in this section of the Bible Paul speaks of the law, refering always to the ceremonial things of the of the Old Testament and saying how they were pointing to Jesus' death and resurrection. Now that He has come, has died, and has risen, they are no longer needed.

But through the rest of the Bible, everyone speaks of the law and how it will stand for as long as this world, always referring to the moral things: no stealing, no adultery, etc.

It goes into the whole "faith alone" bit which is contradicted in numerous parts of both the OT and NT.

But I guess even though Jesus specifically said the old laws were still in effect, Paul's alledged words superceded him.

That did answer the original question, which was where in the Old Testament is there support for the Trinity.

But there is also in the New Testament.

In Matthew 3:13-17 Jesus has just been baptized and He is standing on the bank of the Jordan. The Holy Spirit descends as a dove and rest on His shoulder as a voice from heaven [the Father] says "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."

Then at the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) Jesus commands His disciples to baptise "...in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." He does not say names, neither does He give a name to each. It's one name for all three. And we know that God has revealed to us everything that we need to know about Him for this life (The verse escapes me, sorry.), so we know that to worship God as He has revealed Himself, we must worship a Trinity. If there is more, God did not see that we needed to know it to worship Him properly, so He did not tell us. But that also means that we are not to add, either.


So a human talking is the same as the alledged words of god? Seems like a lot of assumtions. And what would that phrase be in it's original?

It goes into the whole "faith alone" bit which is contradicted in numerous parts of both the OT and NT.

But I guess even though Jesus specifically said the old laws were still in effect, Paul's alledged words superceded him.

You're sure you're reading Hebrews? Because that's not what my Bible says there.

Faith alone is not a contradiction. We are saved by grace through faith. The result is works (which are required whether you are saved or not). What does the Old Testment say? That God prefers your heart to your sacrifices. Not that that means you're free to not do the sacrifices (well, we are because the ceremonial law is no longer in effect, but the point still stands), but that if you're not doing the sacrifices with faith, they're pointless. Sorry, I can't remember the verses.

And when Jesus said that the Old Testament law was still in effect, it was. He had not yet died. And what had He been talking about the whole time before it? The moral law.

So a human talking is the same as the alledged words of god? Seems like a lot of assumtions. And what would that phrase be in it's original?

It would make more sense if it were changed to one of the alternatives which I mentioned. But it isn't. Seems like that's what would be the original to me. The tendency of human error is to make things easier, not harder (though I will admit that happens).

The Bible is God's divinely inspried Word.

The Bible is God's divinely inspried Word.

I'm sorry but your wrong. My magical and mystical post it note here says all world religions are wrong. And the magical and mystical post it note is God's divinely inspired word.

Says so right on it after all. See? "All religions in the world are wrong. God."

It appears, oddly enough, that god is left handed.

It would make more sense if it were changed to one of the alternatives which I mentioned. But it isn't. Seems like that's what would be the original to me. The tendency of human error is to make things easier, not harder (though I will admit that happens).

The Bible is God's divinely inspried Word.

Says you. You're using a circular argument here. You claim the bible is true, and when asked why that would be the case, you say the bible claims that it's true.
I can write a book tomorrow about the divinity of the FSM and denounce the invisible pink unicorn as a demon, which is proven by the fact that she doesn't like pineapples, whereas every Pastafarian knows that pineapples are divine fruit.

Prove me wrong.
If you can't, I hereby maintain that you worship a false god and you shall be punished with grape juice and crackers for all eternity. No cheese.

I'm sorry but your wrong. My magical and mystical post it note here says all world religions are wrong. And the magical and mystical post it note is God's divinely inspired word.

Says so right on it after all. See? "All religions in the world are wrong. God."

It appears, oddly enough, that god is left handed.

All gods are left handed. I should know, I'm a goddess after all :D

Says you. You're using a circular argument here. You claim the bible is true, and when asked why that would be the case, you say the bible claims that it's true.
I can write a book tomorrow about the divinity of the FSM and denounce the invisible pink unicorn as a demon, which is proven by the fact that she doesn't like pineapples, whereas every Pastafarian knows that pineapples are divine fruit.

Prove me wrong.
If you can't, I hereby maintain that you worship a false god and you shall be punished with grape juice and crackers for all eternity. No cheese.

I'm sorry but I, and my magical mystical post it note beat you to it.

I'm sorry but I, and my magical mystical post it note beat you to it.

Is it pink?

Is it pink?

kind of yellowish.

I have to go to class, so I'll see you all later. Providing you wish to see me, of course.

kind of yellowish.

Pineapple-coloured? Then it could indeed be divine. Are there any traces of tomatoe sauce?

Two words.

Magic Johnson

Some people say, "Kobe!" When they make a shot.

"Magic Johnson has AIDS!" is the way for me.

I have to go to class, so I'll see you all later. Providing you wish to see me, of course.

Thanks for answering to all of my posts so comprehensively....

Pineapple-coloured? Then it could indeed be divine. Are there any traces of tomatoe sauce?

possibly...I was eatting a pizza bagle when I wrote it...

....I was of course divinely inspired when I did so.

It would make more sense if it were changed to one of the alternatives which I mentioned. But it isn't. Seems like that's what would be the original to me. The tendency of human error is to make things easier, not harder (though I will admit that happens).

The Bible is God's divinely inspried Word.

Translation: There is no reference to the trinity in Hebrew so making up what I want to believe is my best way out.

As mentioned earlier. God needs to take a biology class.

I don't believe in HIV/AIDS. It's total bullshit.

I don't believe in HIV/AIDS. It's total bullshit.

may I be the first to say....wha?

may I be the first to say....wha?

there are some people who believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS but that the drugs they put you on when you get diagnosed with HIV does.

there are some people who believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS but that the drugs they put you on when you get diagnosed with HIV does.

which I'm sure is cold comfort to the millions of folks in zimbabwe dying of HIV who haven't had any access to medication.

Great news folks, you're not dying after all!

Were not the gospels written by men? By the very mortal and fallible apostles of Jesus? Thus, meaning that they scriptures aren't truly the word of God?!

Canonized scripture is God-breathed. Basically, just terminology for inspired, guided, and invented by God. That's the basis of the Bible.

which I'm sure is cold comfort to the millions of folks in zimbabwe dying of HIV who haven't had any access to medication.

Great news folks, you're not dying after all!

Nah...AIDS is the governments plan to kill all of the hippies and minorities that won't be fit for our new 5-year Plans under the our Great Leaders, Comrade Hillary Clinton and Comrade Nancy Pelosi. Thanks to the great leadership of Comrades Clinton and Pelosi, I passed all of my classes this semester!! Heil Hillary!!

By the way, she will one day. :eek:

Hey, we've already got 30 pages of comments!! I think we can argue a little better than THAT.

Let's set a new record. Someone say something controversial.

Genesis 1:26-27 "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and other the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps all over the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them both."

The name use to refer to God in the Old Testament in Elohim, a plural noun for one God.


Yes, Elohim is plural. I don't see any reason to suspect it refers to three aspects though.

Show me the word 'trinity' anywhere in the Hebrew.


No, if anything, Jesus makes things more complicated and harder to understand.

By saying 'hey, the law is all fiddly, all you have to do is pray to me and it's all made good'?

That is your idea of complicated?

So, you pick and choose to support your ideas. Fine, your allowed, but:

Matthew 9:19 "Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven..."

Which is amusing - because Jesus clearly redefined the commandments himself. He breaks it down to two important points, and some trivia.

By your reading of the book, Jesus is 'least in heaven'.

That should make you question your 'interpretation'.

No, God created the angels and demons are fallen angels, so God cannot be a demon.

Only if you accept the 'traditional' idea that the dude who inspired the book was this 'god' character.

On the other hand, if Satan actually inspired the scripture (I'd be interested to see you prove it to not be so)... maybe 'god' IS a demon?

Translation: There is no reference to the trinity in Hebrew so making up what I want to believe is my best way out.

As mentioned earlier. God needs to take a biology class.

Why were we talking about the Trinity in Hebrews? I thought we were talking about the moral law vs. the ceremonial law.

And as mentioned earlier, a lot of you need to realize that the meanings of words change and their applications are not the same in every situation.

Yes, Elohim is plural. I don't see any reason to suspect it refers to three aspects though.

Show me the word 'trinity' anywhere in the Hebrew.



By saying 'hey, the law is all fiddly, all you have to do is pray to me and it's all made good'?

That is your idea of complicated?

Just because the word isn't there doesn't mean it's not taught. Surely you think that separation of Church and state is supported by the constitution, but the words don't appear there at all.

Which is amusing - because Jesus clearly redefined the commandments himself. He breaks it down to two important points, and some trivia.

By your reading of the book, Jesus is 'least in heaven'.

That should make you question your 'interpretation'.

Well, what you think is my reading of the book is not my reading of the book. Look at what I am saying instead of what you want me to be saying. And if I am being confusing or contradicting myself, point it out so I may fix it; don't just make vague accusations.

I would also like to point out that you have not once provided Scripture to back up your view.

Actually yes, that would make Jesus the least in heaven. And Edwardis, if your god is how you say "he" is, then he is clearly a malevolent being unworthy of worship, not a benevolent, loving figure that you claim. You have said that he can do with his creations what he wants. I do not counter this (though I disagree with your beliefs), but doing what he wants with his creations doesn't equal being good and benevolent. You said that we deserve eternal damnation for the tiniest of wrongs. Why? That is draconian, the punishment should fit the crime. Going to hell for jacking off is like having the death penalty for j-walking.

I don't believe that god is the monster you have described. I think she (yes, I did just switch pronouns, and you can't prove god has a penis) is loving, and not petty enough to care if we get everything absolutely right, and that how we treat each other matters a lot more to her than getting trivia right or obeying some obscure rule.

The bible still has no more evidence for being the word of god than the mystical post it note.

No more than the Norse Sagas (though in their case they would be the word of the gods, plural) do, certainly.

I really wish people would stop acting like they know for sure when in religion, that's impossible.


Edit: And on the subject, no, HIV/AIDS is not punishment. Certainly not for being homosexual, as the majority of the people in the world who have it are heterosexuals, and lesbians have little risk of getting it from having sex with each other. Furthermore, it is certainly not someone's fault if their spouse cheats on them, gets HIV, and then unknowingly infects them.

Oh, and yes, I refer to the god I worship as she. I find it unlikely that god has a gender, but "it" sounds demeaning, and it's just hard for me to imagine god having a dong. Plus I don't think she'd be insecure enough to care if I got that bit wrong.

And the Bhagavad Gita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad-Gita#Influence_of_the_Bhagavad_Gita) claims there are hundreds of gods. That could just as easily be true.
Given that the most common argument for the Bible's authority is, "It's really really old," I'd say the Gita is at least 500 years more authoritative than the Bible. ;)

Pardon?

Are you saying that if God treats everyone equally, and everyone is a sinner, that everyone should have AIDS under my logic?

If so, you forget that I do not believe that God treats everyone equally or that He is required to. If wants to allow you to contract AIDS and protect me, He's allowed. If He wants to allow me to have heart troubles (which He has) and not you, He's allowed.

We are His creation: He can do what He wants with us. And because we are sinners, that includes punishment.

This is too random. What would lead me to believe that I am being punished for anything if it follows random rules? What would lead me to believe it was God's doing if his actions are completely in harmony with actions achieved through chaos?

Sorry about the huge delay in response... my computer is in the shop and I had two days off from work.

Just because the word isn't there doesn't mean it's not taught. Surely you think that separation of Church and state is supported by the constitution, but the words don't appear there at all.

This is funny.

"...because the word isn't there doesn't mean it's not taught".

Do you even realise that what is 'taught' but not 'written', is Tradition, rather than scriptural?

Just because the word isn't there doesn't mean it's not taught.I've been waiting for a chance to do this:
Well, that's not what the Bible says.