Christian Trap...

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-04-23 03:40pm

SirNitram wrote:
Wasn't jesus an avatar?
Jesus was his son, or so sayeth the Book. An Avatar would be God actually manifesting himself in some mortal form. Again, the Christian God seems singularly incapable of this.

That all depends on which Christians you're talking to. The mainstream view of the trinity states that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all one and the same, that Jesus is God in the flesh (literally). Some denominations do interpret the relevant verses differently and conclude that Jesus and God are two different individuals.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-04-23 03:44pm

Plus there's the several times god speaks face to face with men in the bible. That would require some avatarage.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-04-23 04:50pm

jegs2 from another board wrote:In thinking a little more about this, I'm inclined to say that their reasoning in labeling God as a sociopath if He called for a baby to be killed is flawed. Test my reasoning here.

I believe it was Paul (?) that mentioned something about the clay not having a choice about what was done to it by the Potter. If God called for a baby to be killed (as He did, in the OT), then He has a good reason for it. Who gets to define what a "good" reason is? He does. Why? He's the Creator of the baby, and of ALL the rules in the universe.

Clay is not a sentient entity. Are we to say that a child should not have protection from abusive parents?

He also knows that the baby will be in heaven after it's death on earth, which is much finer place to be. In human reasoning, one might label God a sociopath, but they lack the necessary facts and perspective to do so.

This allows anyone who can claim to be "divinely inspired" to justify murder. Are we to allow serial killers and child killers to go free because "God told me to do it"? You might argue that God can commit such acts himself with justification, but to allow someone else to do it "on God's orders" is insane.

Additionally, I doubt these people are all vegetarians, which means that they agree with the killing of animals, presumably with a higher purpose (nourishment of humans). Since they would have to have come to the conclusion that humans have a right to judge that THEIR needs come before those of the animals, to the point of the animals death, then why would it be any different for God, deciding who lives and who dies?

Is God a predator who require human lives for nourishment? God is killing people because they failed to live up to ethical standards that he set himself (failing to worship him properly, disobeying orders, or not being members of his "chosen people" being the major justifications). Is it okay for me to shoot my dog because it doesn't sit on command, pees on the floor, or happens to be a different breed from what I want?

Does that logic hold water?

Not really.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-23 05:12pm

I sent off your response to the other board. We'll see what they have to say to your reply.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-23 05:20pm

SirNitram wrote:Jesus was his son, or so sayeth the Book. An Avatar would be God actually manifesting himself in some mortal form. Again, the Christian God seems singularly incapable of this.

It's generally believed by all Christians (though it was originally a Catholic idea) that Jesus WAS the embodiment of Christ, being both fully God and fully human at the same time. So yes, Jesus was an Avatar.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-23 05:22pm

Also, God HAS manifested himself on Earth, according to the OT. Burning bush, anyone?

Easy, I don't mean the president. Although............

::Ducks::

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-04-23 05:40pm

JOHNATHAN:

Can God create an unmovable object? Yes or no?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-04-23 06:23pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:Also, God HAS manifested himself on Earth, according to the OT. Burning bush, anyone?

I generally ascribe Avatars to be 'Extremely powerful human-like forms', not visions or similar. But I will concede by common interpretation, Jesus was an Avatar.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-04-23 07:03pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:It's generally believed by all Christians (though it was originally a Catholic idea) that Jesus WAS the embodiment of Christ, being both fully God and fully human at the same time. So yes, Jesus was an Avatar.

Not all Christians believe in the Trinity. Most? Yes. All? No.

The validy of the trinity could easily be a subject for another thread. Any takers?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-23 07:10pm

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:JOHNATHAN:

Can God create an unmovable object? Yes or no?

He won't be back until next week.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-23 07:12pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Queeb Salaron wrote:It's generally believed by all Christians (though it was originally a Catholic idea) that Jesus WAS the embodiment of Christ, being both fully God and fully human at the same time. So yes, Jesus was an Avatar.
Not all Christians believe in the Trinity. Most? Yes. All? No.

The validy of the trinity could easily be a subject for another thread. Any takers?

It is a subject of debate between different Christian denominations. And I believe that the Mormons even believe that Jesus was the brother of Satan, and that they become "gods" of their own planets in the next life (but that's another can of worms entirely)...

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2003-04-23 07:25pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Jesus was his son, or so sayeth the Book. An Avatar would be God actually manifesting himself in some mortal form. Again, the Christian God seems singularly incapable of this.
It's generally believed by all Christians (though it was originally a Catholic idea) that Jesus WAS the embodiment of Christ, being both fully God and fully human at the same time. So yes, Jesus was an Avatar.

Did you mean "Jesus was the embodiment of God?" Because Christ is just another term for messiah. Christ coming the Greek word "Christus" meaning the anointed.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-04-23 07:28pm

jegs2 wrote:It is a subject of debate between different Christian denominations. And I believe that the Mormons even believe that Jesus was the brother of Satan, and that they become "gods" of their own planets in the next life (but that's another can of worms entirely)...

So would you be interested in a trinity vs separate entities thread? Or perhaps just part of this one?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-23 07:29pm

Darth Servo wrote:
jegs2 wrote:It is a subject of debate between different Christian denominations. And I believe that the Mormons even believe that Jesus was the brother of Satan, and that they become "gods" of their own planets in the next life (but that's another can of worms entirely)...
So would you be interested in a trinity vs separate entities thread?

Wouldn't have time for it. I'm deploying early tomorrow, and I'll be out of the loop until about Thursday of next week.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-04-23 07:34pm

jegs2 wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:So would you be interested in a trinity vs separate entities thread?
Wouldn't have time for it. I'm deploying early tomorrow, and I'll be out of the loop until about Thursday of next week.

OK. Maybe some other time. BTW, didn't you have a thread a last month ago about a close family member having surgery. How did that go?

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2003-04-23 08:31pm

Jonathan wrote:If I give you a French novel and a French dictionary, you're not going to be able to read the novel without actually having learnt the language.

neoolong wrote:Actually I could. It would just take some work. Work I would do if I was going to base a belief system on it

Actually neoolong, you could only understand bits and pieces of the novel. A dictionary will NOT help you with grammar, syntax, context, etc...

XPViking

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-04-23 08:55pm

Fine, a dictionary and a learn french in 24 hours book.

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-04-23 09:42pm

jegs2 wrote:I sent off your response to the other board. We'll see what they have to say to your reply.

No rebuttal yet, I suppose. Just curious, since I know jegs2 posted two hours after sending my response to the other board.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2003-04-24 12:13am

Fine, a dictionary and a learn french in 24 hours book.

If you really believe that you can learn a language approaching even the survival level (or better yet, translate a French novel) within 24 hours, then I've got some beachfront property in the Gobi desert to sell you.

XPViking

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-04-24 01:18am

XPViking wrote:
Fine, a dictionary and a learn french in 24 hours book.
If you really believe that you can learn a language approaching even the survival level (or better yet, translate a French novel) within 24 hours, then I've got some beachfront property in the Gobi desert to sell you.

XPViking

It's 24, hour long lessons.

And you don't ahve to learn a language. You merely have to translate it. I've done it with Spanish. You can do it, it just sucks.

And if you're going to be basing a moral system of a book, you should do it.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2003-04-24 02:15am

Fair enough, 24 study hours. Big deal. As well, how did you check for errors? Did you have a Spanish speaker look over it?

Sure, you can use a dictionary to get some words but translation involves more than just a dictionary. An understanding of the context, syntax, and grammar is needed, otherwise the amount of errors will rise. You might be able to even get a general impression of what's going on, but it seems that many disputes over Biblical translation revolve around a word or so. For example, is it "Thou shall not kill" or "Thou shall not murder". Boy, some slip by the translator there, eh?

In other words, if your going to base a moral system on something, you'd better hope that the translator wasn't just using a damn dictionary but had a good grasp of both languages.

XPViking

edit: I should add that the level of complexity will also determine the success rate of the translation. Translating street signs isn't all that tough, but since we are talking about basing a moral system from documents, then that's obviously a higher level of discourse.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-24 09:03am

Final reply from that other website until I come back next Thursday. Their response in red...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clay is not a sentient entity. Are we to say that a child should not have protection from abusive parents?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How did we go from clay (humans) and the Potter (Creator of humans) to child and abusive parents?? Again, a change of subject, and avoids the point of what was said.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He also knows that the baby will be in heaven after it's death on earth, which is much finer place to be. In human reasoning, one might label God a sociopath, but they lack the necessary facts and perspective to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This allows anyone who can claim to be "divinely inspired" to justify murder. Are we to allow serial killers and child killers to go free because "God told me to do it"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it doesn't. Two points:

1. God is allowed to do as He wishes with His creation. Man does not have the same permission (although he does have the free will to make choices that voilate God's will for His creation--God allows man that freedom, within the limits He chooses).

2. As previously previously, man is within his rights to put to death or otherwise punish those that violate human laws (such as the law of the death penalty/prison for murder). Since it couldn't be proven, should of divine intervention of some miraculous sort, that God commanded one to kill, those that kill or otherwise violate the law should be punished according to the law.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, I doubt these people are all vegetarians, which means that they agree with the killing of animals, presumably with a higher purpose (nourishment of humans). Since they would have to have come to the conclusion that humans have a right to judge that THEIR needs come before those of the animals, to the point of the animals death, then why would it be any different for God, deciding who lives and who dies?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is God a predator who require human lives for nourishment? God is killing people because they failed to live up to ethical standards that he set himself (failing to worship him properly, disobeying orders, or not being members of his "chosen people" being the major justifications). Is it okay for me to shoot my dog because it doesn't sit on command, pees on the floor, or happens to be a different breed from what I want?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, the point was missed and the subject changed. The point was that, if man is allowed to exercise judgement and decide the worthiness of life and death for animals, why doesn't man allow God the same permission for His creation? If anything, by their reasoning, man shouldn't be allowed to kill animals for any reason, much less unborn children.

In addition, God isn't killing anybody . This WAS a theoretical situation, correct??? AND they mention "people." I thought we were talking one baby? Is there something more to their "trap" that I missed?

And comparing shooting a dog for acting like a dog is NOT the same thing as what we are discussing. Again, again, again, they change the point (perhaps because they can't answer what was said?). Either they don't get what's being said, don't care what's being said, or I'm not saying it right

Anyway....Jegs, I think I may have screwed up at the beginning. I read that they were labeling God as the sociopath, but in looking again, they are labeling the person the sociopath. How'd they miss that with everything else they said? I think they aren't as thorough of readers as they should be We're probably whistling in the wind anyway, but it is a fun discussion, IMHO. The fact that I think that scares me a little......*grin*

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-24 09:28am

Not to jump in here, but ...

jegs2 wrote:1. God is allowed to do as He wishes with His creation. Man does not have the same permission (although he does have the free will to make choices that voilate God's will for His creation--God allows man that freedom, within the limits He chooses).

Ethically speaking, Man is actually not allowed to do as he wishes with his creation. There are numerous animal-cruelty principles which would still apply if we produced a completely genetically engineered animal, for example.

2. As previously previously, man is within his rights to put to death or otherwise punish those that violate human laws (such as the law of the death penalty/prison for murder). Since it couldn't be proven, [short] of divine intervention of some miraculous sort, that God commanded one to kill, those that kill or otherwise violate the law should be punished according to the law.

Fair enough. However, the point remains that what they did was WRONG, not just within our rights to penalize.

Again, the point was missed and the subject changed. The point was that, if man is allowed to exercise judgement and decide the worthiness of life and death for animals, why doesn't man allow God the same permission for His creation?

Actually, if a man kills sentient animals en masse (I don't include beetles in this category, for example) and can give no good reason for doing so, he would be considered a monster. We do not allow arbitrary cruelty or violence to animals, and disrespect (the most common cause of OT killing) is hardly a good enough reason. That's why we have the SPCA.

If anything, by their reasoning, man shouldn't be allowed to kill animals for any reason, much less unborn children.

Sustenance and self-defense are perfectly good reasons for killing animals, but since God does not need to eat us or fear us, I don't see how they apply. Even when men kill animals, there must be some kind of moral justification (hunting for pure sport is on pretty damned shaky ground ethically speaking, although I'm sure a lot of hunters will flame me for that). Why doesn't God need a justification?

Ted C · Post by **Ted C** » 2003-04-24 11:38am

poster on Christian BBS wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clay is not a sentient entity. Are we to say that a child should not have protection from abusive parents?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How did we go from clay (humans) and the Potter (Creator of humans) to child and abusive parents?? Again, a change of subject, and avoids the point of what was said.

It is not a change of subject; he brought the whole Potter/Clay analogy into this. He compares God to the Potter and humans to clay. He is therefore comparing humans to inanimate clay. He is saying that God should be able to kill humans with impunity. I am extending the analogy. If a human couple create a child, do they have the right to do anything they want to that child, up to and including killing the child? According to him, God does not have any moral responsibility to his creations; does he also think parents don't have any moral responsibility to their children?

poster on Christian BBS wrote:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He also knows that the baby will be in heaven after it's death on earth, which is much finer place to be. In human reasoning, one might label God a sociopath, but they lack the necessary facts and perspective to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it safe to assume that this poster does not believe in "Original Sin", then? Or is God just forgiving the baby's "Original Sin" without requiring the usual, conscious acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior?

poster on Christian BBS wrote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This allows anyone who can claim to be "divinely inspired" to justify murder. Are we to allow serial killers and child killers to go free because "God told me to do it"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it doesn't. Two points:

1. God is allowed to do as He wishes with His creation. Man does not have the same permission (although he does have the free will to make choices that voilate God's will for His creation--God allows man that freedom, within the limits He chooses).

2. As previously previously, man is within his rights to put to death or otherwise punish those that violate human laws (such as the law of the death penalty/prison for murder). Since it couldn't be proven, should of divine intervention of some miraculous sort, that God commanded one to kill, those that kill or otherwise violate the law should be punished according to the law.

1. If you want to argue that God has no responsibility to the sentient beings he created, that's up to you. It's a "might makes right" argument, but it's not invalid.

2. What if the person on trial admits to killing a homosexual, then cites Leviticus 20:13 as evidence that God told him to do it? Would that be acceptable evidence that God approves of his actions?

poster on Christian BBS wrote:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, I doubt these people are all vegetarians, which means that they agree with the killing of animals, presumably with a higher purpose (nourishment of humans). Since they would have to have come to the conclusion that humans have a right to judge that THEIR needs come before those of the animals, to the point of the animals death, then why would it be any different for God, deciding who lives and who dies?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is God a predator who require human lives for nourishment? God is killing people because they failed to live up to ethical standards that he set himself (failing to worship him properly, disobeying orders, or not being members of his "chosen people" being the major justifications). Is it okay for me to shoot my dog because it doesn't sit on command, pees on the floor, or happens to be a different breed from what I want?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, the point was missed and the subject changed. The point was that, if man is allowed to exercise judgement and decide the worthiness of life and death for animals, why doesn't man allow God the same permission for His creation? If anything, by their reasoning, man shouldn't be allowed to kill animals for any reason, much less unborn children.

In addition, God isn't killing anybody . This WAS a theoretical situation, correct??? AND they mention "people." I thought we were talking one baby? Is there something more to their "trap" that I missed?

The original question was: "If God told you to kill a baby, would you do it?" God gives such orders more than once in the Old Testament. Assuming God is real, I see three possible responses to the question:

1) Morality flows from God; if he tells you to do something, it must be morally right.

2) Morality is separate from God (supported by Genesis 3, in my opinion); if he tells you to do something, it's not necessarily morally right. If you think he's wrong, you can try arguing with him (as Moses did in Exodus 32). If you can't change his mind, you should follow his orders anyway, because he's more powerful than you, and his authority is more important than your sense of right and wrong.

3) Morality is separate from God; if he tells you to do something that you believe is morally wrong, you should refuse the order, even though God may punish you for your disobedience.

poster on Christian BBS wrote:And comparing shooting a dog for acting like a dog is NOT the same thing as what we are discussing. Again, again, again, they change the point (perhaps because they can't answer what was said?). Either they don't get what's being said, don't care what's being said, or I'm not saying it right.

Or perhaps he doesn't understand what I'm saying. I am not changing the subject; I am drawing an analogy. God can be said to have authority over humans in the same way that humans have authority over their pets. In my analogy, God is "killing humans for acting like humans".

If I housetrain my dog and it later wets the floor, is death a suitable punishment for it? If I've trained my dog to sit on command, but one day it simply doesn't, is killing it justified? In the Old Testament, God routinely punishes even minor transgressions with death.

If I decide that the dog I have is not of the breed I want, am I justified in killing it? God routinely gave orders for the Israelites, his Chosen People, to massacre the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. Note that He never ordered the Israelites to try converting the Canaanites, only to kill them or drive them out.

If my dog approaches a stranger to be petted, am I justified in killing it? God dictated that the punishment for worshipping other gods was death.

If God actually needs to kill humans for reasons of sustenance or self-defense, then you can justify such actions. Can you make the case that God has such needs? Would you even want to?

poster on Christian BBS wrote:Anyway....Jegs, I think I may have screwed up at the beginning. I read that they were labeling God as the sociopath, but in looking again, they are labeling the person the sociopath. How'd they miss that with everything else they said? I think they aren't as thorough of readers as they should be We're probably whistling in the wind anyway, but it is a fun discussion, IMHO. The fact that I think that scares me a little......*grin*

Actually, the discussions on this board tend to expand beyond the original question, as they do on most boards. There are plenty of people here who judge God by human moral standards and find Him wanting. The reasoning goes something like this...

1) God created humans.
2) God set behavior standards for humans.
3) Humans universally failed to live up to Gods standards.
4) God punishes his creations with death, followed by eternal torment.

Since humans are universally unable to meet God's expectations, they must be flawed creations. God is therefore punishing them for his own mistake, so he is unjust.

Of course, the sacrifice of Christ provides an "out" which lets humans avoid the unjust punishment, but it requires acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior. Unfortunately, God didn't use his power to make it abundantly clear to everyone how to be saved, so many people will still suffer the unjust punishment.

Based on Old Testament testimony, God dishes out pain, suffering, and death on scales that make Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein pale in comparison. He supposedly does this to punish sin, but he defines sin, and he created us without the ability to avoid sin. Many of us therefore conclude that God, as described in the Bible, is cruel and unjust.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-04-24 12:06pm

XPViking wrote:Fair enough, 24 study hours. Big deal. As well, how did you check for errors? Did you have a Spanish speaker look over it?

Actually for quite a bit. It was right.

Sure, you can use a dictionary to get some words but translation involves more than just a dictionary. An understanding of the context, syntax, and grammar is needed, otherwise the amount of errors will rise. You might be able to even get a general impression of what's going on, but it seems that many disputes over Biblical translation revolve around a word or so. For example, is it "Thou shall not kill" or "Thou shall not murder". Boy, some slip by the translator there, eh?

In other words, if your going to base a moral system on something, you'd better hope that the translator wasn't just using a damn dictionary but had a good grasp of both languages.

XPViking

Fine grasp? The translators with a fine grasp decided to add things. That isn't very much of a fine grasp.

Besides, if you're going to base a moral system on a book, then you should learn the language then, if that's what your implying.

edit: I should add that the level of complexity will also determine the success rate of the translation. Translating street signs isn't all that tough, but since we are talking about basing a moral system from documents, then that's obviously a higher level of discourse.

Fine, he should learn the language then.

Which is actually more than I was asking, but also makes my point.