I direct this specifically at those who believe that non-believers will burn in hell, and that this is just.
This seems to imply that belief in God is an ethical and rational part of the selection process of who should get into Heaven.
How is this fair, when you account for the fact that the religious affiliation of your household is the single greatest predictor of your religious faith?
The strength of correlation is stronger than that of religious faith and charity, between religious faith and moral strength, etc. Two law abiding, wonderful people can end up adhering to entirely different faiths just by being born into different countries, and thus apparently receiving very different verdicts on judgment day.
Some may point to examples where people have converted to Christianity in adulthood, yet such conversions are seemingly random in the sense that plenty of friendly and admirable people stick to the faith of their parents, while less admirable people remain Christians as a result of environmental factors.
So if faith is really the result of a deep, divine connection with the almighty, why is it no less connectable to simple statistical trends and psychological tendencies than food preferences or career choice through a variety of random factors that have no relationship to any inherent quality of character?
God is NOT calling everyone today. And no, I don't believe those not called today will end up in an ever burning Hell. Neither do the saints go to Heaven. Earth is the reward of the saved, and He is coming HERE. At the end of the Thousand Year Reign of Christ and the Resurrected Saints ON THIS EARTH, the Father will make His home on the earth as well.
The incorrigibly wicked (those who have set their hearts to REBELLION against God will be burned up and become ashes under the feet of the saints. But it does say "ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED." He also told His followers, "Fear not little Flock. It is My Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom."
Do good, and put GOD first and you have no reason to live in fear.
You shall love the Lord with all of your heart, soul and might" & "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" THIS summarizes the Ten Commandments.
Quote from: Yawn on May 04, 2013, 12:40:09 PM
You shall love the Lord with all of your heart, soul and might" & "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" THIS summarizes the Ten Commandments.
Wow, what a misrepresentation of scripture. "THIS" summarizes
all of the law, which, if you are counting on for justification, you must obey
all of; not just these 10.
Quote from: MFA on May 05, 2013, 05:07:28 AM
Wow, what a misrepresentation of scripture. "THIS" summarizes all of the law, which, if you are counting on for justification, you must obey all of; not just these 10.
So you can't covet your neighbor's possessions?
Are all capitalists going to hell?
Quote from: Yawn on May 04, 2013, 12:40:09 PM
Do good, and put GOD first and you have no reason to live in fear.
So what about the good natured child in India who was raised under a Hindu family his whole life?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 08:24:35 AM
So you can't covet your neighbor's possessions?
Are all capitalists going to hell?
You misunderstand. My point is that God's expectations for his people under Jesus' rule have nothing to do with following any laws (less than 10, 10, or more than 10).
QuoteSo what about the good natured child in India who was raised under a Hindu family his whole life?
Not sure what this has to do with my post at all...
But what about this child? What makes him "good natured"? Do you mean "pleasant"? Or completely and inherently good? They're two different things.
But the Bible seems to say that for those "without law" (or, more specifically, without God's law), their own conscience becomes law to them and it is by their conscience that they are judged.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 08:24:35 AM
So you can't covet your neighbor's possessions?
Are all capitalists going to hell?
You are one screwed up SOB if you think this somehow even remotely equates to Capitalism.
In truth, libs are the ones that covets thy neighbors property, not the obverse.
Quote from: Solar on May 05, 2013, 12:14:54 PM
You are one screwed up SOB if you think this somehow even remotely equates to Capitalism.
Brief off topic: Competition in business inherently involves coveting your "neighbor's" customers, profits, success, etc. When you try to sell a product, you naturally covet whatever it is you are trying to obtain. You see, nowhere in the 10th commandment does it limit its prohibition to unlawful or malicious jealousy.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 12:44:20 PM
Brief off topic: Competition in business inherently involves coveting your "neighbor's" customers, profits, success, etc. When you try to sell a product, you naturally covet whatever it is you are trying to obtain. You see, nowhere in the 10th commandment does it limit its prohibition to unlawful or malicious jealousy.
If someone is
offering something for sale, it's not coveting to consider purchasing it.
Funny how he can't see how a group of people voting to take property from their neighbor to pass out tho those who haven't earned it isn't coveting -- and STEALING.
Quote from: MFA on May 05, 2013, 03:13:56 PM
If someone is offering something for sale, it's not coveting to consider purchasing it.
What if you save up your money to buy your dream car? Aren't you coveting the car?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 12:44:20 PM
Brief off topic: Competition in business inherently involves coveting your "neighbor's" customers, profits, success, etc. When you try to sell a product, you naturally covet whatever it is you are trying to obtain. You see, nowhere in the 10th commandment does it limit its prohibition to unlawful or malicious jealousy.
Man, you are one screwed up individual, you can't own a customer!
To translate, you hate Capitalism, hence you admire socialism/communism.
No wonder you voted for the Marxist.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 03:50:03 PM
What if you save up your money to buy your dream car? Aren't you coveting the car?
Does it belong to someone else who has no intention of selling it? The issue is not "wanting something that isn't yours." The issue is "wanting something that belongs to someone else." Obviously (?) if someone is the intention of selling it, it's up for grabs. It's not as if buying and selling didn't exist in the culture in which this law was observed.
Quote from: Solar on May 05, 2013, 04:13:51 PM
Man, you are one screwed up individual, you can't own a customer!
I'm tiring of having to explain the most basic logical reasoning to you, but my natural optimism will prompt me to spell out the most basic connections, yet again.
You do realize that the tenth commandment prohibits the coveting of your neighbor's
wife as well, right? So it obviously extends to interpersonal connections as well as material possessions. It's also interesting that you entirely ignore my point about coveting your customers' money, your competition's financial success, etc; rather, you cherry pick a perceived weakness in my argument and ignore the fact that every one of my points can stand alone.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 10, 2013, 12:56:49 PM
I'm tiring of having to explain the most basic logical reasoning to you, but my natural optimism will prompt me to spell out the most basic connections, yet again.
You do realize that the tenth commandment prohibits the coveting of your neighbor's wife as well, right? So it obviously extends to interpersonal connections as well as material possessions. It's also interesting that you entirely ignore my point about coveting your customers' money, your competition's financial success, etc; rather, you cherry pick a perceived weakness in my argument and ignore the fact that every one of my points can stand alone.
What point, that Capitalism is thievery disguised as a form of commerce?
You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about, but if you'd like to start a topic in Finance, we can pick it up there.
Quote from: Solar on May 10, 2013, 05:56:41 PM
What point, that Capitalism is thievery disguised as a form of commerce?
:blink: As my argument was an ad reductio ad absurdum, I was implying precisely the opposite. This is extremely basic reading comprehension.
How the hell could somebody with a functioning frontal lobe not understand this?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 10, 2013, 06:18:11 PM
:blink: As my argument was an ad reductio ad absurdum, I was implying precisely the opposite. This is extremely basic reading comprehension.
How the hell could somebody with a functioning frontal lobe not understand this?
Most of your posts and reasoning is so absurd, it's hard to tell when you're being flippant, or serious, and yes, I'm serious.
Your posts expose Marxist qualities continuously, so it's reasonable to assume you were serious when you asked if Capitalists are going to Hell.
Maybe you need to master the smiley function, hmmmm?
Quote from: Solar on May 10, 2013, 06:47:00 PM
Most of your posts and reasoning is so absurd, it's hard to tell when you're being flippant, or serious, and yes, I'm serious.
I'm afraid you actually are serious. It took you entire page to figure out what an argument from absurdity looks like.
And no attempts to shift blame onto me for you misunderstanding would work in light of the fact that I was "criticizing" capitalists on the grounds of the 10th amendment. Now Solar, here's a basic question that you should, despite your difficulties in understanding simple argument forms, answer easily:
Do you think that I, an outspoken atheist, would condemn capitalism by using the Scripture?
Think about that for a moment.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 10, 2013, 06:50:27 PM
I'm afraid you actually are serious. It took you entire page to figure out what an argument from absurdity looks like.
And no attempts to shift blame onto me for you misunderstanding would work in light of the fact that I was "criticizing" capitalists on the grounds of the 10th amendment. Now Solar, here's a basic question that you should, despite your difficulties in understanding simple argument forms, answer easily:
Do you think that I, an outspoken atheist, would condemn capitalism by using the Scripture?
Think about that for a moment.
You assume I read this thread, I only read your comment to MFA and your comment to me.
But Atheist or not, you're still a Marxist, and that is enough to make anyone question your remarks regarding Capitalism.
Quote from: Solar on May 10, 2013, 07:11:02 PM
You assume I read this thread, I only read your comment to MFA and your comment to me.
Reading comments without context is a dangerous philosophy. It's actually what the "liberal media" regularly uses to twist stories in their preferences. You don't want to be emboiled by the Evil Liberal Atheist Gay Marxist Conspiracy, do you?
Quote
But Atheist or not, you're still a Marxist,
Oh, so we're devolving into name calling and ridiculous hyperbole now? Can I retort and call you a theocracy supporting fascist now?
Quoteand that is enough to make anyone question your remarks regarding Capitalism.
What you don't understand is that, with the most basic reading comprehension skills, such a confusion should never have taken place. You honestly have never figured out what an argument from absurdity is, and therefore prance around like a fool and pretend that thinking I actually meant to assault capitalists
using a moral code I don't believe in is just too stupid for me to not understate.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 09:18:46 AM
Reading comments without context is a dangerous philosophy. It's actually what the "liberal media" regularly uses to twist stories in their preferences. You don't want to be emboiled by the Evil Liberal Atheist Gay Marxist Conspiracy, do you?
Oh, so we're devolving into name calling and ridiculous hyperbole now? Can I retort and call you a theocracy supporting fascist now?
What you don't understand is that, with the most basic reading comprehension skills, such a confusion should never have taken place. You honestly have never figured out what an argument from absurdity is, and therefore prance around like a fool and pretend that thinking I actually meant to assault capitalists using a moral code I don't believe in is just too stupid for me to not understate.
If you don't realize you're advocating Marxism with your every post, then your intellect is by far less than I gave you credit for.
You may not want to believe you're a Marxist, but if it walks like a Duck....
Quote from: Solar on May 11, 2013, 11:17:56 AM
If you don't realize you're advocating Marxism with your every post, then your intellect is by far less than I gave you credit for.
You may not want to believe you're a Marxist, but if it walks like a Duck....
If you don't understand the absurdity of your suggestion that an atheist would use the bible to justify condemning capitalists, I don't know what to say.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 11:37:08 AM
If you don't understand the absurdity of your suggestion that an atheist would use the bible to justify condemning capitalists, I don't know what to say.
Nice try at a lousy dodge, but it still doesn't disprove my allegation that you're a Marxist.
Quote from: Solar on May 11, 2013, 12:03:59 PM
Nice try at a lousy dodge, but it still doesn't disprove my allegation that you're a Marxist.
Because your entire argument is predicated on the absurd notion that an atheist would use the bible as a moral guide. And given that you still can't comprehend how humiliating your reading fail was, I don't think you're very qualified to make allegations about anything. I mean, this is the same person who thought that gases weren't significantly affected by gravity! :lol:
It's especially silly to call me a Marxist, given that my mother's side of the family was targeted and persecuted by Mao ZeDong, but you have such an inability to use logic that I'm just going to wait for you to provide some semblance of evidence.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 01:17:33 PM
Because your entire argument is predicated on the absurd notion that an atheist would use the bible as a moral guide. And given that you still can't comprehend how humiliating your reading fail was, I don't think you're very qualified to make allegations about anything. I mean, this is the same person who thought that gases weren't significantly affected by gravity! :lol:
It's especially silly to call me a Marxist, given that my mother's side of the family was targeted and persecuted by Mao ZeDong, but you have such an inability to use logic that I'm just going to wait for you to provide some semblance of evidence.
Tell you what, read up on Fabian socialism, and tell me you don't agree with most of what they hope for.
For reasons of expediency, I'll just give you the Wiki page, it scratches the surface pretty well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society
Quote from: Solar on May 11, 2013, 02:00:19 PM
Tell you what, read up on Fabian socialism, and tell me you don't agree with most of what they hope for.
For reasons of expediency, I'll just give you the Wiki page, it scratches the surface pretty well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society
From a quick skimming of the wiki, they supported minimum wage laws, public education, a civilian army and other reforms that are accepted as axioms by even the center-right today (a rather common trend; the liberal policies of old are the conservative positions of today); however, they were also apparently eugenicists and imperialists.
Naturally, you seem to think that a moderate socialist party constitutes Marxism.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 11, 2013, 07:05:37 PM
From a quick skimming of the wiki, they supported minimum wage laws, public education, a civilian army and other reforms that are accepted as axioms by even the center-right today (a rather common trend; the liberal policies of old are the conservative positions of today); however, they were also apparently eugenicists and imperialists.
Naturally, you seem to think that a moderate socialist party constitutes Marxism.
But what you didn't know, is the Fabians are Marxists, they even started the movement they day Marx died as a celebration of his ideals.
They differ in only one aspect, a belief that they can achieve his dream without revolution.
So I'm right, they are just like you, which proves my point, you're a Marxist at heart, you just never researched it.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 04, 2013, 09:12:25 AMI direct this specifically at those who believe that non-believers will burn in hell, and that this is just.
This seems to imply that belief in God is an ethical and rational part of the selection process of who should get into Heaven
How is this fair, when you account for the fact that the religious affiliation of your household is the single greatest predictor of your religious faith?
This is your question? How is it
fair?
Sense I'm not one of those you are specifically adressing, and I suspect there no serious members on this board that meet your criteria. I will rather attack the underlying assumption of your thread.
Your question is whether or not an belief in something is in itself an ethical and rational part of the process of being judged "pure/good" and if that is fair.
Well, to turn it around as you so much like to do comparative analysis of christianity with non believers. Is it fair for people in communist countries to be oppressed, tortured, murdered for having opposing beliefs? Is it fair that people in green movement attack people they view as non green with both physical attack and harassment? Is it fair that people of faith should be expelled from public places for the simple statement that they believe in God? Is it fair or just that in socialist countries people view successfull entrepenours with contempt and jealousy?
Of course not, and no conservative think it is fair to attack people for not believing in God.
So this thread is useless on this board no?
Oh and would not the world be such a more better place if we all just followed Romans 14? Atheists and Christian alike? Strong in faith and no faith leave each other alone to worship or not worship as each see fit? Isn't this the essence of the first amendment?
QuoteHow is this fair, when you account for the fact that the religious affiliation of your household is the single greatest predictor of your religious faith?
Religion is man made, Salvation is a free gift from God.
"Salvation" is accepting Jesus as your Savior, having died in your place bearing the condemnation of death that sin begets. Then keep ALL the commandments of God; "go and sin no more."
If you want to see how highly God values "religious affiliation", then read the first three chapters of Revelations.
SFF, the basis of your thread is flawed, you completely discount the hundreds of thousands of global missionaries who are doing exactly what you claim they are not in your OP.
http://cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/May/Growth-Explosion-Chinas-Christianity-Takes-Root-/ (http://cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/May/Growth-Explosion-Chinas-Christianity-Takes-Root-/)
I would appreciate proof of where I have posted ANYWHERE which gender the 144000 are. If you are going to accuse me of something, please back it up.
I am also at a complete loss as to what this has to do with the topic of this thread.
Quote from: JustKari on July 10, 2013, 02:29:48 PM
I would appreciate proof of where I have posted ANYWHERE which gender the 144000 are. If you are going to accuse me of something, please back it up.
I am also at a complete loss as to what this has to do with the topic of this thread.
Just so everyone knows you're not addressing ghosts, I deleted the idiots account and banned him.
Quote from: Solar on July 10, 2013, 02:43:00 PM
Just so everyone knows you're not addressing ghosts, I deleted the idiots account and banned him.
Good! I have been out most of the day in the sun. Was thinking my age and the sun was doing a number on me. :lol:
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 08:24:35 AM
So you can't covet your neighbor's possessions?
Are all capitalists going to hell?
I really wish you Leftists would stop confusing Capitalism with what you Socialists believe Capitalism consists of; you've been wrong for a while now, and it's starting to get old. Just because you Socialist greedily covet what ever anyone else has -
AND ARE WILLING TO LIE, CHEAT AND STEAL TO OBTAIN IT, you assume that Capitalists are the same. Capitalism is all about voluntarily trading a good you have, for something you desire. Since we are well past the barter stage, usually that means cash. For some reason Socialists believe that the simple fact that you exist, entitles you to the fruits of everyone else's labor.
QuoteSo what about the good natured child in India who was raised under a Hindu family his whole life?
Have there ever been any Christian missionaries to India? If the salvation of Christianity has been offered to Indians, and they have rejected it; why do you believe they should profit by it. Christ said: Matthew 19:14
"But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven". If there parents have done so, then I would guess they have doomed their souls.
Quote from: mdgiles on August 11, 2013, 12:04:48 PM
Have there ever been any Christian missionaries to India? If the salvation of Christianity has been offered to Indians, and they have rejected it; why do you believe they should profit by it. Christ said: Matthew 19:14 "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven". If there parents have done so, then I would guess they have doomed their souls.
Missionaries to India began with someone called Thomas. There is even evidence that the Christian message has influenced Hinduism.
Christians have existed in India for centuries--for longer than Christians have existed in North America.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 05, 2013, 08:24:35 AM
So you can't covet your neighbor's possessions?
Are all capitalists going to hell?
So what about the good natured child in India who was raised under a Hindu family his whole life?
Talk about a perversion, capitalists, those going out and earning what they have by the free choices of others, are suddenly coveting others possessions? And what of the Socialists, Marxists, and Communists, that don't just covet, but take.
And if you're going to bring up Hinduism, why don't you actually bring something up of that faith, rather than just the grossly generalized stereotype of "good natured".
Quote from: Trip on August 11, 2013, 05:57:24 PM
Talk about a perversion, capitalists, those going out and earning what they have by the free choices of others, are suddenly coveting others possessions? And what of the Socialists, Marxists, and Communists, that don't just covet, but take.
And if you're going to bring up Hinduism, why don't you actually bring something up of that faith, rather than just the grossly generalized stereotype of "good natured".
This guy and Shenanigans come from the same forum, a once great forum, all that's left is kids and commies now.
I had to boot this idiot, he was not interested in discussion in the least, just poking the hornets nest and running away for months at a time.
Let's look at coveting for real. Coveting is thinking "How can I cheat to get that ____ for myself?"
If you buy the object, you aren't coveting it.
If you buy one just like it, you aren't coveting it.
If you want the item bad, but can't buy it, you are coveting it.
If there is only one of them, it belongs to your neighbor, and he won't sell, and you still want it, you are coveting it.
If it is something you can't possibly have without disobeying God (such as someone else's wife), you are coveting.
Capitalism is coveting only when someone wants to cheat someone else to get it.
Socialism and egalitarianism are government coveting what everyone has.
There is a BIG difference between someone giving something to someone else, and government taking it to give it to someone else.
Liberals covet our religious rights. They want to take them away so they can sin without penalty.
Taxation over 10% is coveting.
Many liberals covet the money we give to our churches.
Quote from: JustKari on May 13, 2013, 07:15:48 AM
SFF, the basis of your thread is flawed, you completely discount the hundreds of thousands of global missionaries who are doing exactly what you claim they are not in your OP.
Do people who never hear about Christ go to hell when they die?
If they do, your God is very cruel.
If they do not, when why send missionaries? You're actually damning people by doing so.
Either way, there are two possibilities here:
1. Missionaries are effective, and people's eternal fates are apparently determined by the actions of others, so societies with greater access to missionaries have an unfair advantage over, say, bushmen in remote regions of Africa.
2. Missionaries are useless or even harmful (when it comes to saving people's souls).
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 16, 2013, 02:04:12 PM
Do people who never hear about Christ go to hell when they die? If they do, your God is very cruel.
Wait.
My God does what? To whom?
The ever-popular "Invisible Spaghetti Straw Man In The Sky" argument -- from the people who all scream until they're blue in the face that THEY are the only "rational" human beings.
Quote from: mdgiles on August 11, 2013, 12:04:48 PM
I really wish you Leftists would stop confusing Capitalism with what you Socialists believe Capitalism consists of; you've been wrong for a while now, and it's starting to get old. Just because you Socialist greedily covet what ever anyone else has - AND ARE WILLING TO LIE, CHEAT AND STEAL TO OBTAIN IT, you assume that Capitalists are the same. Capitalism is all about voluntarily trading a good you have, for something you desire. Since we are well past the barter stage, usually that means cash. For some reason Socialists believe that the simple fact that you exist, entitles you to the fruits of everyone else's labor.
Read the Bible again. I have no problem with a regulated capitalist society -
the bible does, given that it makes it a crime even to
think about having someone else's stuff (note: no qualification that you must want to
steal it). And it extends towards employees as well, since it forbids wanting a relationship with the other's wife (unless if you accept that the Bible quite clearly isn't as socially progressive as you would wish).
That's the other scary part of the 10 comandments, aside from its bronze age mentality (notice how it's clearly written exclusively for an agricultural society) and its lack of any endorsement of universal suffrage or emancipation - it criminalizes thought crimes. God suggests that it is a crime to even
think about wanting other's stuff. There's a reason why nobody, not even the most rabid fundies, actually follows the book to the letter.
Quote
Have there ever been any Christian missionaries to India? If the salvation of Christianity has been offered to Indians,
Interesting. So what happened to the Indians that lived and died before Christianity spread?
Did they go to hell?
Did they get a pass and were judged on their merits instead of their faith?
If the former, how is that fair?
If the latter, why send missionaries at all? Ignorance really is bliss in this case; you're actually damning plenty to eternal fire if you try to convert them.
Notice how irrational the entire structure and model proposed by the Bible is? Whether it's justifying its "murder infants" passages or its unscientific nonsense, or dealing with logical paradoxes such as the above, apologists frequently must resort to convoluted mental gymnastics to get it all to work. Occam's razor tells us that we should dismiss its validity because the universe can be
better explained without it. Your emotions tell you that you should try to bend probability and parsimony to try to get it to fit with the evidence that constantly contradicts your faith's predictions.
Quote from: mdgiles on August 11, 2013, 12:04:48 PM
I really wish you Leftists would stop confusing Capitalism with what you Socialists believe Capitalism consists of
It's not fair to expect any more of neo-hippies. Everyone bases his world view on what he knows. Normal people tend to rely on logic, reason, common sense and reality -- but liberals build their whole lives around assiduously avoiding all of those things.
Do you think it's a
coincidence that liberals all believe every business manager behaves precisely like an unemployable, shiftless narcissistic jackass who's looking for a free lunch? Of course not; it's just the only mental image they can conjure because all they know is what THEY would do if somebody were fool enough to give them a major corporation to run.
Quote from: kopema on November 17, 2013, 09:43:45 AM
It's not fair to expect any more of neo-hippies. Everyone bases his world view on what he knows. Normal people tend to rely on logic, reason, common sense and reality -- but liberals build their whole lives around assiduously avoiding all of those things.
Do you think it's a coincidence that liberals all believe every business manager behaves precisely like an unemployable, shiftless narcissistic jackass who's looking for a free lunch? Of course not; it's just the only mental image they can conjure because all they know is what THEY would do if somebody were fool enough to give them a major corporation to run.
There you go again not understanding what the fuck anyone is talking about; I'm referring to capitalism's incompatibility with the
bible, not with my own moral codes (which obviously have no connection with something I do not believe in). I don't think you understand that the 10th commandment does not forbid stealing others' property (and wives) but rather merely the
thought of
wanting it. It's one of the earliest examples of a thought crime; a dangerous method used by plenty of totalitarian regimes to control the way you think.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 10:00:44 AM
There you go again not understanding what the fuck anyone is talking about; I'm referring to capitalism's incompatibility with the bible, not with my own moral codes (which obviously have no connection with something I do not believe in). I don't think you understand that the 10th commandment does not forbid stealing others' property (and wives) but rather merely the thought of wanting it. It's one of the earliest examples of a thought crime; a dangerous method used by plenty of totalitarian regimes to control the way you think.
OK, can anybody chime in a guess as to what the retard's babbling about now?
Is he trying to say that people who work for a living are evil for making things and offering to exchange them for fair value, or that the Bible is "totalitarian" for condemning the spiteful greed of totalitarians in a different Commandment from the one that condemns the actual acts of theft carried out at their demand?
Or maybe both... or something?
Quote from: kopema on November 17, 2013, 02:47:38 PM
Is he trying to say that people who work for a living are evil
No. Read and reread the thread, read and reread my post, and continue to do so until you get it through to you that
this is what the Bible is saying, and that I am taking the contrary stance and ridiculing it. Do you understand the concept of an argument from absurdity?
Quote
for making things and offering to exchange them for fair value,
According to the Bible, yes. According to me, no.
Quote
or that the Bible is "totalitarian" for condemning the spiteful greed of totalitarians in a different Commandment from the one that condemns the actual acts of theft carried out at their demand?
Now you're getting there! The 10th amendment is one of the earlier examples of a regulation of
thought, with God forbidding the coveting of your neighbor's things or relationships (despite allegedly being the one to give us the natural adaptive emotions of jealousy and ambition). Notice that he doesn't only forbid
stealing your neighbor's possessions, as he already had in a previous commandment, but condemns even the act of wanting it. So if you're running a business and want your customers' money or your competition's attention, you are sinning, even if you pursue these desires through ethical and legal channels. According to the Bible.
Now, why does God in the Old Testament condone slavery, condone genocide, condone painful executions for arbitrary crimes of "not being a virgin when you marry (if you're female)" and "working on sundays", and yet we give him a pass because he was lucid enough to tell us not to steal? Where's the promotion of social equality, of freedom of conscience, of religious toleration? Oh, right, those were secular ideals that would not gain momentum for thousands of years, while this is evidently a book written by bronze age men.
And yet interestingly enough nobody has successfully addressed the OP's question. You have to undergo a whole series of mental gymnastics to explain why what is supposed to be divine revelation is so easily reduced to sociology.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 04:00:42 PM
Now you're getting there! The 10th amendment is one of the earlier examples of a regulation of thought, with God forbidding the coveting of your neighbor's things or relationships (despite allegedly being the one to give us the natural adaptive emotions of jealousy and ambition). Notice that he doesn't only forbid stealing your neighbor's possessions, as he already had in a previous commandment, but condemns even the act of wanting it. So if you're running a business and want your customers' money or your competition's attention, you are sinning, even if you pursue these desires through ethical and legal channels. According to the Bible.
No, according to your rubber definition of the word "covet."
Quote from: MFA on November 19, 2013, 05:16:28 PM
No, according to your rubber definition of the word "covet."
I don't have the original hebrew word that has since been translated into "covet" in some versions of the text, but merriam-webster's definition is "to want (something that you do not have) very much". How is this a sin? How is it remotely plausible to criminalize such a vague and ubiquitous human desire? As usual God doesn't want us to know or want anything beyond what he directly gives and tell us to do (although why he'd give our brains the chemistry to automatically feel such emotions is beyond me). It's there with the fruit of knowledge. It's there with the Tower of Babel. It's here with the 10th commandment.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 05:55:41 PM
I don't have the original hebrew word that has since been translated into "covet" in some versions of the text, but merriam-webster's definition is "to want (something that you do not have) very much". How is this a sin? How is it remotely plausible to criminalize such a vague and ubiquitous human desire? As usual God doesn't want us to know or want anything beyond what he directly gives and tell us to do (although why he'd give our brains the chemistry to automatically feel such emotions is beyond me). It's there with the fruit of knowledge. It's there with the Tower of Babel. It's here with the 10th commandment.
"To want (something that you do not have) very much." That's it? Seems a little simplistic. Other definitions include the clarifier "inordinately" or "inappropriately."
Is that okay? To want something "too much"? Is that possible? If it's possible, would it be wrong?
Quote from: MFA on November 19, 2013, 05:16:28 PM
No, according to your rubber definition of the word "covet."
LiberalSpeak is a harsh mistress.
Of course wanting a better life for yourself and your family is a perfectly wonderful thing, which has nothing whatsoever to do with even so much as greed, let alone covetousness. And, equally as obviously, helping your fellow man by running your own business and managing your own property is as far away from any of that as it's possible to get.
There is a REASON the Bible repeats the admonition against what is now perversely referred to as "liberalism" (depending on the translation) five to seven times in the otherwise phenomenally concise Ten Commandments. If an asshole cuts you off in traffic, it's not a sin to idly wish that guy might "accidentally" get punched in the throat. It's only a sin to actually DO something about that perfectly natural and healthy impulse.
But covetousness is something else entirely. In order to covet, you must not only want something someone else has -- you must also
want them to not have it.
Ergo, collectivism is inextricably linked to spite. Of course it's not money that is the root of all evil. It is the love of money; and infinitely more precisely the lust for OTHER PEOPLE'S money that is the root of all evil. And in that regard it's not completely insignificant to note that liberalism consists of only two driving motivations:
1) covetousness; and
2) absolutely nothing else.
The latter element of pathological narcissism - utter spiritual, emotional and intellectual vacuousness - isn't by any stretch of the imagination a "good" thing; but the former is infinitely worse.
MFA I'd like some dictionary quotes.
Quote from: kopema on November 19, 2013, 06:25:07 PM
Of course wanting a better life for yourself and your family is a perfectly wonderful thing, which has nothing whatsoever to do with even so much as greed, let alone covetousness. And, equally as obviously, helping your fellow man by running your own business and managing your own property is as far away from any of that as it's possible to get.
The 10th commandment does not make such a distinction.
Quote
There is a REASON the Bible repeats the admonition against what is now perversely referred to as "liberalism" (depending on the translation) five to seven times in the otherwise phenomenally concise Ten Commandments. If an asshole cuts you off in traffic, it's not a sin to idly wish that guy might "accidentally" get punched in the throat. It's only a sin to actually DO something about that perfectly natural and healthy impulse.
The 10th commandment penalizes thought crimes. And I don't think it's very damning that liberalism is not endorsed in the Old Testament, the same book with passages like this:
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you,
kill every man in the town. But you may
keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and
other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the
LORD your God has given you."
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
and this:
"A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be
burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)"
not to mention this:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)"
oh, no list would be complete without:
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there
stone them to death:
the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
wtf... :huh:
And I'm actually choosing some of the tamer ones!
Quote
But covetousness is something else entirely. In order to covet, you must not only want something someone else has -- you must also want them to not have it.
On what dictionary definition?
And yes, if you want someone's money, their not having it is a logical necessity. :rolleyes:
Quote
Ergo, collectivism is inextricably linked to spite. Of course it's not money that is the root of all evil. It is the love of money; and infinitely more precisely the lust for OTHER PEOPLE'S money that is the root of all evil. And in that regard it's not completely insignificant to note that liberalism consists of only two driving motivations:
1) covetousness; and
2) absolutely nothing else.
The latter element of pathological narcissism - utter spiritual, emotional and intellectual vacuousness - isn't by any stretch of the imagination a "good" thing; but the former is infinitely worse.
Are you aware that progressive liberal morals are the reason why you have a concept of democracy and equal rights at all? Hint: they're nowhere in the Old Testament. Maybe Jesus slightly alludes to them in the NT. And if you were to go back in time and claim to a group of democracy/republic activists in the 19th century that they were conservatives, they'd laugh you out of the country.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 08:57:35 PM
MFA I'd like some dictionary quotes.
"...to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property."
First one that came up on dictionary.com.
"...to have an inordinate or wrongful desire."
Third that came up on dictionary.com.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/covet?s=t (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/covet?s=t)
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 19, 2013, 08:57:35 PM
Are you aware that progressive liberal morals are the reason why you have a concept of democracy and equal rights at all? Hint: they're nowhere in the Old Testament. Maybe Jesus slightly alludes to them in the NT. And if you were to go back in time and claim to a group of democracy/republic activists in the 19th century that they were conservatives, they'd laugh you out of the country.
And if you told them that you're "gay," they'd invite you out to the bar for drinking and dancing!
After that though, I'm afraid your inability to understand the concept of LiberalSpeak redefinition timelines might take a bit of an ugly turn....
Quote from: kopema on November 20, 2013, 10:35:32 AM
And if you told them that you're "gay," they'd invite you out to the bar for drinking and dancing!
After that though, I'm afraid your inability to understand the concept of LiberalSpeak redefinition timelines might take a bit of an ugly turn....
Well, if you have historical evidence that the constitutional democratic/republican advocates in the 19th century, despite consistently labeling themselves liberals and being labeled by the right as radical liberals, were actually conservatives, and that the monarchists that labeled themselves conservatives were actually liberal, feel free to provide it.
Do you know where the terms "Left" and "Right" came to be used in a political context? When France's National Assembly met, advocates of the democratization of France sat on the left while royalists sat on the right. But of course
I'm the revisionist here.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 04, 2013, 09:12:25 AM
How is this fair ...
This is a question of whether God is fair or not. Here's an illustration of how fair God is: the woman caught in adultery. Jesus said, "let him who has not sinned cast the first stone". And basically, everyone who was so judgemental earlier, dropped their rocks and went home. Then Jesus said, "they do not condemn you, so neither do I".
Was that fair? HECK yes. It was MORE than fair. Or... does it somehow sound unfair to you? It is an illustration of how fair God will be when the time comes to consider a person's life actions and whether they will be in heaven. And yes, there was a person "who had not sinned" there, but He chose not to throw that first stone. God has all the time in the world to get to the bottom of a person's motivations. As far as I can tell, the people who go to hell don't want anything to do with God, and choose hell.
Hell is basically a place set aside where God agrees not to go there, no matter what. Because those people don't want anything to do with God. That leads to another illustration. Let's say you had kids that didn't want anything to do with you. They wanted their own space, away from you. So you set up a room where they can live, you'll never go into it no matter how messy it is, even if you hear screaming and smoke coming through the doors. Because they wanted it that way. That's just a glimpse of hell.
God will be fair. The irony of even asking such a question is that it is an acknowledgement that the situation does not apply to you. You already know enough about God to know there will be consequences to your actions in this life. You can't claim you haven't heard about Him.
I thought I had given up on this board, but some newbie (not the poster below) decided to send me a completely random PM calling me a freedom-hating liberal (no!!!). :rolleyes: I guess I could take a moment to respond to some of what I missed, even if the poster here is unable to reply:
Quote from: kevmo on March 21, 2014, 09:44:54 AM
This is a question of whether God is fair or not. Here's an illustration of how fair God is: the woman caught in adultery. Jesus said, "let him who has not sinned cast the first stone". And basically, everyone who was so judgemental earlier, dropped their rocks and went home. Then Jesus said, "they do not condemn you, so neither do I".
"everyone who was so judgmental earlier" - you ignore the part where they were so judgmental
because God explicitly orders them to be judgmental. It's God who orders that girls who aren't virgins when they marry be stoned to death, this being one of his
tamer mandates.
So, essentially Jesus comes along and criticizes the policies of the omniscient God, who, of course, is actually the same thing as Jesus, who, of course, explicitly denied that he was going to change any of the OT's laws. This maelstrom of self-contradiction and moral depravity is perfectly explained by the theory that the Bible is a collection of stories written by primitive men. Assume that it must be divinely ordained, and you crack your brain open from the mental gymnastics.
Quote
Was that fair? HECK yes. It was MORE than fair. Or... does it somehow sound unfair to you?
Ordering that raped women who don't scream loudly enough be stoned to death doesn't sound very fair to me, nor does ordering the murdering of the babies of defeated tribes.
Quote
As far as I can tell, the people who go to hell don't want anything to do with God, and choose hell.
Bullshit. People who Christian mythology claims go to hell don't believe that God is real; that's an
intellectual position, not a moral one, and certainly not one that suggests a
desire to suffer unbearable agony for all eternity.
QuoteLet's say you had kids that didn't want anything to do with you. They wanted their own space, away from you. So you set up a room where they can live, you'll never go into it no matter how messy it is, even if you hear screaming and smoke coming through the doors. Because they wanted it that way. That's just a glimpse of hell.
First of all, any parent who seriously did that would be a pretty shitty parent, even though we make no standards or claims to omniscience for them. Secondly, your analogy is irrelevant because those children cannot possibly doubt the existence of their parents.
Quote
God will be fair. The irony of even asking such a question is that it is an acknowledgement that the situation does not apply to you. You already know enough about God to know there will be consequences to your actions in this life. You can't claim you haven't heard about Him.
And you seriously think that eternal torture is a proportional punishment for not getting yourself baptized and fellating an invisible deity on a weekly basis? Why do we even have the 8th amendment, if the concept of "cruel and unusual" doesn't even apply to a perfect benevolent, omnipotent, wise-white-man-in-the-sky?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 04, 2013, 09:12:25 AM
I direct this specifically at those who believe that non-believers will burn in hell, and that this is just.
This seems to imply that belief in God is an ethical and rational part of the selection process of who should get into Heaven.
How is this fair, when you account for the fact that the religious affiliation of your household is the single greatest predictor of your religious faith?
TRUE Christians (not CULTURAL Christians) are specifically CALLED and CHOSEN by God. Of course, you're free to reject Him and many do. But because someone grew up in a Christian household, and he/she even call themselves "Christian", that doesn't make it so. The BIBLICAL definition of a Christian is "one in whom the Spirit of God dwells. There really aren't that many Christians in these Last Days (When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?).
QuoteThis seems to imply that belief in God is an ethical and rational part of the selection process of who should get into Heaven.
How is this fair, when you account for the fact that the religious affiliation of your household is the single greatest predictor of your religious faith?
Questions answered millennia ago:
QuoteThe heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
Quote... because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks
Trying to blame God for people's refusal to recognize and pursue what God made clear is silly.
Quote from: SVPete on August 03, 2014, 08:57:34 AM
Questions answered millennia ago:
Trying to blame God for people's refusal to recognize and pursue what God made clear is silly.
Quote
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
The prose is passable but the logic is shitty - I could substitute "Zeus", "Allah", "the invisible flying pink unicorn", or more accurately, "quantum mechanics and general relativity", and the argument makes just as much sense.
Quote
... because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks
If the existence of a specific religion's God were self evident from creation (as if that were not the
textbook definition of the "god of the gaps"), we wouldn't need missionaries. But isn't it such a coincidence that nobody in Africa ever heard of Jesus before Europeans arrived? Such a divine gospel is only spread through very human, very mechanistic, very imperfect means.
Quote from: carlb on August 02, 2014, 02:54:11 PM
TRUE Christians (not CULTURAL Christians) are specifically CALLED and CHOSEN by God. Of course, you're free to reject Him and many do. But because someone grew up in a Christian household, and he/she even call themselves "Christian", that doesn't make it so. The BIBLICAL definition of a Christian is "one in whom the Spirit of God dwells. There really aren't that many Christians in these Last Days (When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?).
You see, the funny part here is that your post doesn't even come close to addressing anything that it quoted.