 | | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) I'm no expert by any stretch but I think this is false on both counts. It's my understanding that if enough inbreeding occurs you actually get the same result as carefully avoiding inbreeding. I think there was evidence of this from (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Okay, but you'd agree that it is taboo in our culture? If so, to what would you attest that value? I'll have to do a little research, but I think the taboo extends beyond any Judeo-Christian influence. (...) I don't follow you. Are you saying (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) There's plenty of examples of inbreeding in the Bible. Does the Bible also specifically forbid incest? It's not something of great importance to me either way so I can see my forgetting these details... (...) It is my understanding that (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) I like the bit in the Bible where the men have harems--why can't I have my many women! K, I don't have a woman right now, yet enough to constitute a harem... so this point's rather irrelevant. <snip> (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Yes, incest is prohibited in Leviticus. So are a lot of things BTW, like eating lobster;-) I think the issue predates the Bible. And I did a little research-- it appears that incest is taboo in virtually every culture (except in some (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Out of curiosity, do you believe the story of Noah's Ark? Dave! (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) As a matter of historical record, no. It is a story, as are the creation stories in Genesis. But I do believe that a Supreme Being created the universe somehow. I believe that the Bible isn't interested in explaining the hows of anything, but (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Okay, then why, according to the bible, did God create man and, for that matter, the universe? Dave! (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Fellowship. God wants to be in relationship with us. JOHN (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Well, if you're like most male human beings -- you will! One at a time. It's called "serial monogamy." And if you don't get married or have children I think I'd have to say that you would be increasing your chances of increasing the numbers (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Then you're asserting that God is finite and imperfect? Dave! (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) I don't think that follows from what I said. Any attempts (even Biblical) to describe the infinite will fall woefully short, and attempts to describe God will inevitabley start sounding like anthropomorphizing. Using the third person musculine (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Well, the chain works like this: To "want" something (such as fellowship), is to imply a lack of that thing (or a desire to prevent the negation/removal of that thing). A being who lacks something is incomplete, and incompleteness indicates (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Did you think the usual proof was to trite? The Problem of Evil A good God would destroy evil. An all powerful God could destroy evil. Evil exists and is not destroyed. ~~~...~~~ Therefore, there cannot possibly be such a good and all powerful (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) I like that proof just fine, but when I've presented it here before (in prior discussions) it's usually been dismissed off-handedly in terms of "His mysterious purpose" or the like. For variety's sake, I thought that I'd try this perfect = (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) God intentionally limits Himself by giving us free will (as far as we know). God desires us to have abundant life-- I don't see where this indicates that God is incomplete or imperfect. Perhaps you could say that God is limited, but it is by (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Ultimately evil will be destroyed. Is this a temporal issue? God allows evil only because God respects our free will. People choose evil. (...) Yes. (...) Again, because God respects free will. (...) No. JOHN (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) As a mental exercise, if you were an omnipotent being and had the ability to improve/redesign/remodel our current universe, how would you do it? (besides making LEGO grow on trees;-) JOHN (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's straight from the mouth of Elihu in the Book of Job. Elihu says God "was angry at Job because he justified himself rather than God" (Job 32.2): "God is greater than man. Why do you contend against him?" (Job 33.12-13). God even (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Funny: I want you to express your free will. If you do good, I will love you and reward you in this life and with the attainment of heaven in the afterlife. If you do evil, I will smite you and burn you down in this life and punish you with (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) I'm afraid that the doctrine of free will is incompatible with the notion of original sin; it is logically inconsistent to believe in both. (...) God is limited in other ways, too. God, as an omnibenevolent being, can never take first-hand (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) It is illogical for an infinite being to even give free will-- it would seem that all is predestined anyway. (...) Never say never, Dave! Isn't pleasure simply a release of endorphines in our little electro-stimulated brains? Couldn't it all (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) I'm not so sure. I think that there are plenty of people who'd rather embrace evil than good, and they do every day. I look at it this way: God says, "Here is the gift of life-- live it however you choose. But life is a mystery, and sometimes (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Gee, how did I know that all of this was coming? It's not that God is logically impossible -- it's that YOUR CONCEPTION of God is logically impossible. Can you see the difference? Your conception of God, however much you try to evade your (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) So the other day I take the day off work to help my dad pour concrete. Talking to the 'cement truck guy' who has been in the business for 40 years (and a week away from (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) No, he can't. Unless, that is, you accept that it is a good act to take pleasure in killing an innocent human being. And if indeed you do accept that, then you undermine all your previous arguments about the evils of fanatical Islam. (...) But (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's why I used the word "delusion." Delusion -- The act or process of deluding; The state of being deluded; A false belief or opinion; Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Yeah, I love that story! I believe that it describes the (URL) model of the universe. (URL) Here's> related commentary from the (URL) Skeptic's Dictionary> website: What are we to make of the fact that our personal experience contradicts the (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) An excellent summation, Dave! It's pretty much where I stand as well. I'll live my life as virtuously as I know how, but I won't rub blue mud in my belly button and then delude myself that doing so somehow makes me better than those that won't (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) This is something that got me away from "organized" religion--the most virtuous person I have ever met (imho) is my uncle George--he's up at 5 a.m. flooding the skating rink in the local park for the kids, with no thought of restitution, he's (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Are you saying that the "Good Book" is a creation of man, and therefore flawed? Or that men are unable to understand the meaning of a divine text? I think ultimately I am asking you the value of a flawed or unknowable text. If your (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) As clear as poosible givine the context Some folks say that the 'good book' is God's holy word, and as such, is impervious to mistake. Sure. Whatever. That's why every minister that has ever preached and every discourse of specific passages (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) This suggests a question that may have been asked herepreviously, but I'd like to follow up on it once again: Accepting that you do believe that God exists, {why} do you believe that God exists? I've asked people this in non-LUGNET life, and (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Well, you won't like my answer then. Being a pretty big fan of science, but only managing to fluff in trying to get a BA, I consider myself a 'pseudo-sciece guy'. Which means I get the general concepts, adn can see how things work and all, but (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) I'm with Kooties in that you are not likely to like my answer either. And I am likely to be further marginalized by "uber-pagan" types like Bruce. Keeping in mind that I reject most organized religions out of hand as obviously politically (...) (21 years ago, 29-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Give this man a pat on the back (was Re: Holy crap!)
|
|
(...) Like the subject line says: "Give this man a pat on the back." Adr. (21 years ago, 29-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
|
|
(...) Where's my favorite appeal to logic: if you don't believe in God you will burn in hell for all eternity! -->Bruce<-- (21 years ago, 29-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap!
|
|
(...) Marginalized by me? I thought it all great - not quite what I expected from The Angry Young Man. Dave may not like it, but I do. It all fits into a neo-pagan Gaiea world view. I suppose it fits into alot of religions - except for the bit about (...) (21 years ago, 29-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Holy crap!
|
|
(...) As can play^H^H^H^Hbuilding with LEGO bricks. But as a form of meditation I prefer music (playing, listening, laughing at.....) ROSCO (21 years ago, 29-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
