Christianity makes sense to me.

[Kanastrous]

Yeah, and the worst part is, He delegates.

Doesn't even bother raining down the fire-and-brimstone, Himself.

[Cycloneman]

I'm not a child, and I'm not a 'he'.

I'm actually the mother of adult children.

How do we know that you aren't lying in hope of getting sympathy?

We don't, but I would have imagined that if a person on the internet tells you their gender, race, or age, you take that statement at face value until it becomes disproven.

Or do girls just not exist on the internet?

[Kanastrous]

Or do girls just not exist on the internet?

Sure they do. I see nekkid picture of 'em there, all the time.

[Metatwaddle]

I'm not a child, and I'm not a 'he'.

I'm actually the mother of adult children.

How do we know that you aren't lying in hope of getting sympathy?

We don't, but I would have imagined that if a person on the internet tells you their gender, race, or age, you take that statement at face value until it becomes disproven.

Or do girls just not exist on the internet?

Not only do we not exist, we're also not ruling the forum via our secret cabal.

[General Zod]

We don't, but I would have imagined that if a person on the internet tells you their gender, race, or age, you take that statement at face value until it becomes disproven.

I'm sure it's not as if people have lied about their age to gain access to places before or lied about their gender to fool someone into trusting them or to score sympathy points.

Or do girls just not exist on the internet?

I dunno about anyone else but I operate under the assumption that everyone on the internet is male until given sufficient reason to believe otherwise. It makes dealing with people who use ambiguous screen names much easier.

[Ghost Rider]

Kanastrous, Cycloneman. Stop spamming.

[Metatwaddle]

Or do girls just not exist on the internet?

I dunno about anyone else but I operate under the assumption that everyone on the internet is male until given sufficient reason to believe otherwise. It makes dealing with people who use ambiguous screen names much easier.

...The person telling you she's female isn't sufficient reason to believe otherwise?

As to the first part, well, he was stopped by chariots of iron. You don't get many clearer indications of not being omnipotent. The second part is pretty much a given. It's not as if God hasn't ordered wholesale genocide before.

Okay, so it's clear that God's not omnipotent. Is it possible, then, that he couldn't just wave his hand and save everyone, but that he could save everyone if they did certain things (like worship Jesus)? For a god with limited power, is it possible that sending a son to die is actually a perfectly good idea?

[Kanastrous]

Or do girls just not exist on the internet?

Not only do we not exist, we're also not ruling the forum via our secret cabal.[/quote]

Jeez, what are you saving up to be, non-Jewish...?

[Kanastrous]

Kanastrous, Cycloneman. Stop spamming.

Okay.

[Ghost Rider]

Or do girls just not exist on the internet?

Not only do we not exist, we're also not ruling the forum via our secret cabal.

Jeez, what are you saving up to be, non-Jewish...?[/quote]

I'm serious...stop fucking spamming.

[Kanastrous]

Okay, so it's clear that God's not omnipotent. Is it possible, then, that he couldn't just wave his hand and save everyone, but that he could save everyone if they did certain things (like worship Jesus)? For a god with limited power, is it possible that sending a son to die is actually a perfectly good idea?

A god with limited power, isn't God. Just some kind of cut-rate demiurge.

[General Zod]

...The person telling you she's female isn't sufficient reason to believe otherwise?

It depends on the environment. On boards like this one there's less room for doubt, but it's easier to assume male until proven otherwise the vast majority of the time.

Okay, so it's clear that God's not omnipotent. Is it possible, then, that he couldn't just wave his hand and save everyone, but that he could save everyone if they did certain things (like worship Jesus)?

Why not just use fear or manipulation to get them to submit like he's done in the past instead of the self-sacrifice route?

For a god with limited power, is it possible that sending a son to die is actually a perfectly good idea?

I'm failing to see why it would be a good idea at all in the first place.

[Cycloneman]

We don't, but I would have imagined that if a person on the internet tells you their gender, race, or age, you take that statement at face value until it becomes disproven.

I'm sure it's not as if people have lied about their age to gain access to places before or lied about their gender to fool someone into trusting them or to score sympathy points.

Yes, yes, but are these cases the majority? Are most people on this forum below 13? Are most girls on the internet not really? Is it at all fair to assume that someone is lying automatically?

Or do girls just not exist on the internet?

I dunno about anyone else but I operate under the assumption that everyone on the internet is male until given sufficient reason to believe otherwise. It makes dealing with people who use ambiguous screen names much easier.

Oh, yes, sure, assuming male gender is perfectly acceptable, but once a person states their gender, it is polite to use the proper pronoun to describe them and not accuse them of faking it for sympathy.

[General Zod]

Oh, yes, sure, assuming male gender is perfectly acceptable, but once a person states their gender, it is polite to use the proper pronoun to describe them and not accuse them of faking it for sympathy.

And I've said otherwise. . . .where? Oh yeah, I also wasn't accusing anyone of anything. It's called an example of why people lie about their gender.

[Rye]

Okay, so it's clear that God's not omnipotent. Is it possible, then, that he couldn't just wave his hand and save everyone, but that he could save everyone if they did certain things (like worship Jesus)? For a god with limited power, is it possible that sending a son to die is actually a perfectly good idea?

A god with limited power, isn't God. Just some kind of cut-rate demiurge.

Why's that? Thor's not a god now? Belief in Thor isn't a theistic belief?

[Cycloneman]

Oh, yes, sure, assuming male gender is perfectly acceptable, but once a person states their gender, it is polite to use the proper pronoun to describe them and not accuse them of faking it for sympathy.

And I've said otherwise. . . .where? Oh yeah, I also wasn't accusing anyone of anything. It's called an example of why people lie about their gender.

Generally when someone replies to a point by showing the flaws in that point, the assumption is that the point is incorrect or invalid. I don't disagree with you that people do lie about their age/gender on the internet, but to assume (or reach the conclusion on flimsy premises) that someone is lying about their age/gender/race on the internet is invalid.

[General Zod]

Generally when someone replies to a point by showing the flaws in that point, the assumption is that the point is incorrect or invalid. I don't disagree with you that people do lie about their age/gender on the internet, but to assume (or reach the conclusion on flimsy premises) that someone is lying about their age/gender/race on the internet is invalid.

Did you completely ignore my post right above yours in response to Discombobulated that it depends on the environment as well? Or are you just trying to rack up some e-penis points by attacking a largely irrelevant, off the cuff remark because you don't actually have anything intelligent to say about the main point of the thread?

[Kanastrous]

Why's that? Thor's not a god now? Belief in Thor isn't a theistic belief?

'Big G' monotheistic god versus 'Little g' limited part-of-pantheon god.

I was thinking of the usage in a Judeo-Christian sense; sorry for not being clear about that.

[General Zod]

'Big G' monotheistic god versus 'Little g' limited part-of-pantheon god.

I was thinking of the usage in a Judeo-Christian sense; sorry for not being clear about that.

Polytheism. Monotheism. Norse are polytheistic. Christians are monotheistic. I'm sure even a retarded 10 year old can figure it out from there.

[Metatwaddle]

...The person telling you she's female isn't sufficient reason to believe otherwise?

It depends on the environment. On boards like this one there's less room for doubt, but it's easier to assume male until proven otherwise the vast majority of the time.

Yeah, true. I do the same thing here I do believe Basic Model is female though, mostly because she says so but also because she just sounds stereotypically female in tone.

Okay, so it's clear that God's not omnipotent. Is it possible, then, that he couldn't just wave his hand and save everyone, but that he could save everyone if they did certain things (like worship Jesus)?

Why not just use fear or manipulation to get them to submit like he's done in the past instead of the self-sacrifice route?

Well, because that doesn't work very well. The OT is full of stories of the Israelites trusting God, winning wars, turning away from God in favor of other gods, losing wars, turning back to God, etc. It seems pretty cyclical.

Anyway, some traditional theology goes that he couldn't really send people to heaven before Jesus (fear and manipulation notwithstanding), because they had unredeemed sins. If we accept the fact that God has limited power, then perhaps there's some divine justice system, which would have to be more powerful than even God himself, that won't let people have eternal joy in heaven if they aren't completely free of sin. And no human is free of sin. What Jesus was supposed to do, as you obviously know, was to act as a substitute: to suffer so that humans, who are sinful by nature, wouldn't have to.

For a god with limited power, is it possible that sending a son to die is actually a perfectly good idea?

I'm failing to see why it would be a good idea at all in the first place.

I'm not entirely sure either. I'm just trying to figure out whether, for a non-omnipotent God, the basic Christian theology makes more sense than it does for an omnipotent God. I'm trying to construct a coherent idea of reality in which it makes moral and logical sense for a powerful but not omnipotent God to send in a substitute - himself/his son - to suffer in place of the humans who deserve it. The only such reality is one in which God has to satisfy some sort of divine justice system that's more powerful than he is.

But even that doesn't work, because this divine "justice" system would be perfectly happy to let an innocent person suffer and a guilty person go to heaven. But the entire point of a justice system is to give to people what they deserve, and to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. So it falls apart.

[Kanastrous]

I'm just trying to figure out whether, for a non-omnipotent God, the basic Christian theology makes more sense than it does for an omnipotent God. I'm trying to construct a coherent idea of reality in which it makes moral and logical sense for a powerful but not omnipotent God to send in a substitute - himself/his son - to suffer in place of the humans who deserve it. The only such reality is one in which God has to satisfy some sort of divine justice system that's more powerful than he is.

You might be approaching it from the wrong angle.

The whole 'Father sends son (himself) to Earth to die for humanity's sins' is rooted in the concept of the scapegoat; the old Leviticus gag where the High Priest would ceremonially transfer the burden of the people's guilt to an animal which was then driven out of the community to symbolize the removal of that guilt (or to 'really' remove it, depending upon the degree of your belief in the idea).

For a new religion growing out of Judaism and looking to attract followers, the scapegoat concept was already widely familiar and therefore a useful recruiting tool.

So, don't look for 'coherence' or 'reality;' look to history and anthropology to see where the idea originated. Trying to tack on a rational explanation afterwards seems like the worst kind of religious apologetics.

[Cycloneman]

Generally when someone replies to a point by showing the flaws in that point, the assumption is that the point is incorrect or invalid. I don't disagree with you that people do lie about their age/gender on the internet, but to assume (or reach the conclusion on flimsy premises) that someone is lying about their age/gender/race on the internet is invalid.

Did you completely ignore my post right above yours in response to Discombobulated that it depends on the environment as well?

No, I did not completely ignore the post about it relating to the environment. I was not aware that my statements in any way conflicted with your previous post.

I suppose this is the same thing that made me misinterpret your original post in this tangent. I didn't ever say that you were wrong in that post, did I?

[Turin]

I do believe Basic Model is female though, mostly because she says so but also because she just sounds stereotypically female in tone.

She sounds like my mom, actually. Creepy.

I'm just trying to figure out whether, for a non-omnipotent God, the basic Christian theology makes more sense than it does for an omnipotent God. I'm trying to construct a coherent idea of reality in which it makes moral and logical sense for a powerful but not omnipotent God to send in a substitute - himself/his son - to suffer in place of the humans who deserve it. The only such reality is one in which God has to satisfy some sort of divine justice system that's more powerful than he is.

But even that doesn't work, because this divine "justice" system would be perfectly happy to let an innocent person suffer and a guilty person go to heaven. But the entire point of a justice system is to give to people what they deserve, and to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. So it falls apart.

I think the larger point you've missed there is that "by canon," the law itself is defined by God. So the idea that God answers to a higher authority is moot. But you knew that.

So, don't look for 'coherence' or 'reality;' look to history and anthropology to see where the idea originated. Trying to tack on a rational explanation afterwards seems like the worst kind of religious apologetics.

Knowing Discombobulated, I'm thinking it's just a thought experiment, not an actual attempt at apologetics.

[General Zod]

Well, because that doesn't work very well. The OT is full of stories of the Israelites trusting God, winning wars, turning away from God in favor of other gods, losing wars, turning back to God, etc. It seems pretty cyclical.

That seems to reinforce my point. Clearly he couldn't make them do what he wanted by being nice.

Anyway, some traditional theology goes that he couldn't really send people to heaven before Jesus (fear and manipulation notwithstanding), because they had unredeemed sins. If we accept the fact that God has limited power, then perhaps there's some divine justice system, which would have to be more powerful than even God himself, that won't let people have eternal joy in heaven if they aren't completely free of sin. And no human is free of sin. What Jesus was supposed to do, as you obviously know, was to act as a substitute: to suffer so that humans, who are sinful by nature, wouldn't have to.

What unredeemed sins? It's not as if humanity today is somehow less "sinful" (according to Biblical standards) than they were thousands of years ago. The only way this works at all is if Jesus was some type of sacrifice that he was supposed to use in place of sending down another Flood or something. He couldn't exterminate humanity again so he sent in a substitute. Still pretty silly either way.

I'm not entirely sure either. I'm just trying to figure out whether, for a non-omnipotent God, the basic Christian theology makes more sense than it does for an omnipotent God. I'm trying to construct a coherent idea of reality in which it makes moral and logical sense for a powerful but not omnipotent God to send in a substitute - himself/his son - to suffer in place of the humans who deserve it. The only such reality is one in which God has to satisfy some sort of divine justice system that's more powerful than he is.

The problem with that line of thinking is that it suggests there is something higher than God, who is supposed to be the final authority in everything. Not exactly consistent.

But even that doesn't work, because this divine "justice" system would be perfectly happy to let an innocent person suffer and a guilty person go to heaven. But the entire point of a justice system is to give to people what they deserve, and to distinguish between the guilty and the innocent. So it falls apart.

Most justice systems also use human standards. Some all powerful being like God is anything but human, so what he considers "justice" would be radically different from what humans consider it. So we have no real way of knowing whether or not people are actually getting what they deserve even with the retarded laws he's passed down due to the sheer amount of inconsistencies and alien thinking behind them.

[CaptJodan]

I don't really swallow the whole "Jesus suffering in place of us" thing anyway. What suffering? Is he actually going to be in Hell for eternity in place of those who go to Heaven, or did he spend a weekend there and then go up to Heaven and gets to live in paradise until Rapture, makes his list, checks it twice, slaughters people god doesn't like, and then go back up to spend eternity in heaven?

What I can't get past is the fact that Jesus really doesn't "suffer" any more than thousands of people have suffered throughout time. Sure, being nailed to a cross sucks ass...probably not the way I would choose to go unless you hook it up to a giant lightning rod so that the next storm will make it quick, but there are still worse ways to go. Spending a weekend sipping cocktails in Hell with Satan doesn't equate to paying for the sins of SOME of mankind who bypass hell, nor compares to the suffering felt by those destined to Hell for eternity. That's assuming he even went in the first place, which in my limited research (quick google search) shows people saying he didn't even go through Hell.