How Did Humanity Come To Be

[General Mung Beans]

No. If Jesus was in fact the Messiah (which he was not even if god were real, because he does not meet the required prophecies), it means that he was there to fulfill the law, specifically the coming of the Messiah, which was supposed to bring about in addition to an end of death, universal Jewish adherence to the Torah.

He was a Messiah different from what many Jews thought the Messiah would be by establishing a Gospel based on love.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No. If Jesus was in fact the Messiah (which he was not even if god were real, because he does not meet the required prophecies), it means that he was there to fulfill the law, specifically the coming of the Messiah, which was supposed to bring about in addition to an end of death, universal Jewish adherence to the Torah.

He was a Messiah different from what many Jews thought the Messiah would be by establishing a Gospel based on love.

So God changed his mind about who and what the Messiah would be? The prophecies laid out in the Tanakh regarding the Messiah are fairly explicit and Jesus met a grand total of zero of them.

[General Mung Beans]

[1] Don't ever quote Wikipedia.

Is that sort of a taboo site here? Just curious.

[2] That's not a definition of faith. Do you know what a definition is? Do I need to teach you?

It's not the definition of faith in general but the definition of faith in Christianity.

[3] If I deign to accept your quotation, it says essentially that faith is a "belief in [a benevolent] God," the spiritual domain, and the ministry of Jesus. In other words, it's a set of propositions you hold true.

You can't defend beliefs by saying they're "faith," then turn around and quote "faith" to be the beliefs you're defending.

Well faith in general can be defined as:

3.
belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

[General Mung Beans]

So God changed his mind about who and what the Messiah would be? The prophecies laid out in the Tanakh regarding the Messiah are fairly explicit and Jesus met a grand total of zero of them.

Actually the Gospels quite often quote OT prophecies to show Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So God changed his mind about who and what the Messiah would be? The prophecies laid out in the Tanakh regarding the Messiah are fairly explicit and Jesus met a grand total of zero of them.

Actually the Gospels quite often quote OT prophecies to show Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

No. They dont. They make up post-prophecies (prophecies not in the OT), site messiah prophecies that refer not to the messiah but to those who were already born (the whole virgin birth thing for example is not a messiah prophecy and refers to someone else entirely who was not born of a virgin but a young woman. Alma is mistranslated from young woman to virgin), and even fuck up the correct ones. For example the contradictory David lineage.

[Surlethe]

[1] Don't ever quote Wikipedia.

Is that sort of a taboo site here? Just curious.

Not just "here," but anywhere with standards.

[2] That's not a definition of faith. Do you know what a definition is? Do I need to teach you?

It's not the definition of faith in general but the definition of faith in Christianity.

[3] If I deign to accept your quotation, it says essentially that faith is a "belief in [a benevolent] God," the spiritual domain, and the ministry of Jesus. In other words, it's a set of propositions you hold true.

You can't defend beliefs by saying they're "faith," then turn around and quote "faith" to be the beliefs you're defending.

Well faith in general can be defined as:

3.
belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

Reread the point to which you responded. Then rethink this reply and try again.

[Simon_Jester]

I don't think you actually addressed my question. I asked why you believe that all sins are equally wrong, not if you believe that all sins are equally wrong. Telling me that you believe it does not tell me why you believe it.

Because the wages of any sin is death (spiritually).

OK. So that is why you believe all sins to be equally bad. That being the case:

Why do you believe that to be true? Is it because:

I believe the books that are in the Bible were inspired by God.

Ah. So why do you believe that to be true? As opposed to some books getting slipped in by accident, or some God-inspired books not making the cut during the big Councils in the late Roman and early Byzantine era?

"Effeminate" and "soft" don't have direct sexual connotations either but as homosexuals has been stereotyped as such they are often eupheisms for "homosexual" after all what else could it mean in that context?

So, and I have to ask: what about the "hard gay" types who are hyper-masculine? Do they get into Heaven?

[General Mung Beans]

Not just "here," but anywhere with standards.

I've been to some other forums with relatively high standards (Straight Dope Message Board and Alternate History Discussion Board) and Wikipedia was accepted by most people there.

[General Mung Beans]

OK. So that is why you believe all sins to be equally bad. That being the case:

Why do you believe that to be true? Is it because:

Yes.

Ah. So why do you believe that to be true? As opposed to some books getting slipped in by accident, or some God-inspired books not making the cut during the big Councils in the late Roman and early Byzantine era?

I believe those councils were guided by God when they determined which books were to be placed in the Bible.

So, and I have to ask: what about the "hard gay" types who are hyper-masculine? Do they get into Heaven?

I'm not saying all homosexuals are effeminate merely it was a stereotype and often a eupheism for homosexual.

[Surlethe]

Not just "here," but anywhere with standards.

I've been to some other forums with relatively high standards (Straight Dope Message Board and Alternate History Discussion Board) and Wikipedia was accepted by most people there.

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE SOURCE. PERIOD.

Now answer my point about beliefs and faith: if your "faith" is a collection of beliefs, why should it be held to a different standard than other beliefs?

[Samuel]

I've been to some other forums with relatively high standards (Straight Dope Message Board and Alternate History Discussion Board) and Wikipedia was accepted by most people there.

Here is how we treat wikipedia. You can use it... but only to find other sources. You go to the bottom and go to the origional and check if it matches the wiki article AND if it is an accurate source.

I believe those councils were guided by God when they determined which books were to be placed in the Bible.

How do you determine wheter something was guided by God?

[Simon_Jester]

Ah. So why do you believe that to be true? As opposed to some books getting slipped in by accident, or some God-inspired books not making the cut during the big Councils in the late Roman and early Byzantine era?

I believe those councils were guided by God when they determined which books were to be placed in the Bible.

So why do you believe that to be true?

I'm not saying all homosexuals are effeminate merely it was a stereotype and often a eupheism for homosexual.

On the contrary, in ancient times it was hardly believed that all homosexuals were effeminate. Achilles was strongly implied to be in love with Patroclus, for instance, and he was a paragon of heroic masculinity.

Now, being the bottom in a homosexual relationship would get you labeled as effeminate: "Caesar conquered Gaul, but Nicomedes conquered Caesar" and all that. But that still raises the question I asked already.

[SirNitram]

Simple question to put it down: Why would any being of such power bother with us? The Earth and it's system is excessively dull. Our planets are small, our star is average, doesn't even have a partner in the dance, and we're surrounded by alot of other extremely dull systems. We're so far from anywhere at all, you need telescopes to get decent information out of sky. We're not even unique; there have been intelligent tool-users before our current species. So. What the hell makes us sooooo special that a powerful being would give two shits about us, and not the Cro-magnon? Or about the Xoticon of Radim Six? Or the balloon animals?

The fundamental answer is one of Christianity's own 'deadly' sins. Pride.

[Simon_Jester]

Simple question to put it down: Why would any being of such power bother with us? The Earth and it's system is excessively dull. Our planets are small, our star is average, doesn't even have a partner in the dance, and we're surrounded by alot of other extremely dull systems. We're so far from anywhere at all, you need telescopes to get decent information out of sky. We're not even unique; there have been intelligent tool-users before our current species. So. What the hell makes us sooooo special that a powerful being would give two shits about us, and not the Cro-magnon? Or about the Xoticon of Radim Six? Or the balloon animals?

The fundamental answer is one of Christianity's own 'deadly' sins. Pride.

Who says that a powerful being doesn't give all those other critters equal attention? If God is usually watching the balloon animals of Zabriska or the Xoticon of Radim Six instead of us, it would probably explain a lot...

[Serafina]

Not just "here," but anywhere with standards.

I've been to some other forums with relatively high standards (Straight Dope Message Board and Alternate History Discussion Board) and Wikipedia was accepted by most people there.

Wikipedia is not an acceptable source because everyone can edit it.
Yes, it is somewhat self-correcting.
But it is often possible to slip something into it that seems accurate - so no one will correct it.
Furthermore, you could simply have read something that has recently been edited - or you could even edit it yourself prior to the discussion.

Bottom line:
Just because Wikipedia is generally reliable does not mean that is reliable on any specific topic.

[Kanastrous]

If God is usually watching the balloon animals of Zabriska or the Xoticon of Radim Six instead of us, it would probably explain a lot...

Not much of a deity, if Her attention to one species means that She can't simultaneously grant similar attention to the rest of Her creations. An omniscient God whose attention can only be on one species at a time doesn't sound particularly omniscient.

[Liberty]

Hey Mung Beans, I still haven't gotten my question answered either: if faith is something you just choose to believe without evidence (as you intimated earlier), what makes your faith any better than that of Muslims, or Jews, etc? And if you do have evidence, what is it?

[Surlethe]

Samuel. Serafina. I have dealt with the use of Wikipedia as a source in this thread. There is no need to elaborate, lest you risk staff wrath for backseat moderation.

[Serafina]

Hey Mung Beans, I still haven't gotten my question answered either: if faith is something you just choose to believe without evidence (as you intimated earlier), what makes your faith any better than that of Muslims, or Jews, etc? And if you do have evidence, what is it?

Well, technically you can rate religions by humanist standards - e.g. one that promotes violence against non-believers (such as christiantiy or islam) is worse than those that don't (Taoism, Buddhism).
Therefore, one faith-based belief system can be better than another.

Of course, abrahamic religions would not really excell here compared to most spiritualist and eastern religions.

Samuel. Serafina. I have dealt with the use of Wikipedia as a source in this thread. There is no need to elaborate, lest you risk staff wrath for backseat moderation.

Well, i just wanted to give an explanation instead of saying "well, don't do it" - but okay, i'll shut up.

[Simon_Jester]

Not much of a deity, if Her attention to one species means that She can't simultaneously grant similar attention to the rest of Her creations. An omniscient God whose attention can only be on one species at a time doesn't sound particularly omniscient.

Sure.

I mean, I can think of perfectly coherent religions that don't invoke omniscient deities. Prettydarnscient, yes; omniscient, no. But then, I'm not Mung Beans.

[SirNitram]

Simple question to put it down: Why would any being of such power bother with us? The Earth and it's system is excessively dull. Our planets are small, our star is average, doesn't even have a partner in the dance, and we're surrounded by alot of other extremely dull systems. We're so far from anywhere at all, you need telescopes to get decent information out of sky. We're not even unique; there have been intelligent tool-users before our current species. So. What the hell makes us sooooo special that a powerful being would give two shits about us, and not the Cro-magnon? Or about the Xoticon of Radim Six? Or the balloon animals?

The fundamental answer is one of Christianity's own 'deadly' sins. Pride.

Who says that a powerful being doesn't give all those other critters equal attention? If God is usually watching the balloon animals of Zabriska or the Xoticon of Radim Six instead of us, it would probably explain a lot...

Except Christianity is predicated on this being sending this son to US, not Xoticum or Zabriska. Or the Waffle-Iron Quadrant.

[Simon_Jester]

Except Christianity is predicated on this being sending this son to US, not Xoticum or Zabriska. Or the Waffle-Iron Quadrant.

True. Assuming that God sent only one son to only one species, then yeah, that's kind of messed up.

[Serafina]

Except Christianity is predicated on this being sending this son to US, not Xoticum or Zabriska. Or the Waffle-Iron Quadrant.

True. Assuming that God sent only one son to only one species, then yeah, that's kind of messed up.

That already follows from "created in his image" - well, unless we assume that every non-terran sapient species looks exactly like humans.

[Simon_Jester]

That depends heavily on the definition of "image." Christianity does not assert that God is a biped, for example. And if even they don't do it... again, I can imagine religions that don't.

[Einzige]

That depends heavily on the definition of "image." Christianity does not assert that God is a biped, for example. And if even they don't do it... again, I can imagine religions that don't.

Actually...

And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."

Then the LORD said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen."

- Exodus 33:19-23

Clearly the God of the Jews was a bit fleshier than the pallid abstraction that is the Christian deity.