Cenegenics.

A video about what you're talking about DE.

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wc1Vt9S9v8Q?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wc1Vt9S9v8Q?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="390" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

It's a flat out contradictory syllogism, sure enough, as far as I know! If God is love, and God is a jealous God, then some love must be jealous! Of course, if what those crazy old Corinthians meant to say was that some love is not jealous, then it's a plain old invalid argument! Even Aristotle could work one of those out!

 

Actually that is the one thing that I don't deny. God's love for us is such that while He could force us to be perfect, he doesn't. And while he knows all the infinite permutations of what could be, he doesn't know what choices will be made until the decisions are set. Hence free will.

"Love seeks not her own" (I Corinthians 13) means that God (Love) doesn't do things for his benefit. It's not that he can't; it is that he has chosen not to. Why do you suppose that Jesus taught the whole law and the prophets hung upon two laws that commanded us to love?

God is a holy God which means that he doesn't break his own laws. The law in its most basic form is Love. Therefore logic dictates that God's Love rules his behavior.

According to Judaism, we aren't born sinners. It is not until our first sin that we, as individuals, fall from perferction. However, what child gets through his terrible twos without being disobedient? Through his teens without succumbing to peer pressure. Through adulthood, without having to do something contrary to Love in order to survive?

???. The topic is here is Theology. More specifically Christian Theology. More specifically yet, MY Theology which is defined by the teaching of Jesus as told to us by Scripture. If this is informally fallacious, then appealling to the dictionary during a spelling bee is as well.

Some translations are better than others. Envy wants what it does not have (Covetousness), while jealousy has and wish to keep.

 

I suddenly got a mental image of a guy saying something like:

"If you eat the vanilla cake, you can eat as much cake as you like. if you eat the chocolate cake I'll throw you in the oven."

The only way this isn't forcing a choice is because some people didn't hear him say that, or are too stupid to understand "oven=pain."

I'll have the chicken, please.

 

Y'know, I've been studying comparitive religion for decades and I pride myself on understanding everyone's point of view.

But... stone-age superstition and legalism is for children and cowards.

The all-father is purported to have commanded Abraham to circumcise every man he could get his hands on, but in fact this is a phallasy.

 

If all your talking about is what it says in the Bible or some shit like that, go right ahead quoting it, though I sincerely doubt that what people are debating is Biblical interpretation; however, I have a feeling that you might think some of this fairy-tale nonsense is real, being a Christian and all that, so excuse me for jacking your swag by pointing out that saying that such-and-such is true because the Bible says so, is informally fallacious. Before you misunderstand me again, ask yourself:

1. Do I believe that all or most things said in the Bible are facts?
2. Is there anything objective to make me think these facts are definitely true?
3. Is there any reason to accept these as facts over reasoning and experiment?
4. Is there anything that contradicts my beliefs?
5. Why do I accept the Bible over these contradictory texts, principles, &c.?
6. Is there any objective reason for me to believe this stuff rather than any other stuff?
7. Where is God?
8. Where is heaven?
9. How do I know?

If you do think that the Bible is as factual as a scientific study, then your attempt to prove it as such by quoting Scripture is (no prizes for guessing) informally fallacious.

 

I'd like to get an expert's opinion on this. Where's God when you need him? No, not THAT God, the other one.

Personally I sort of believe that Shintoïsm could be closer to the truth then Christianity, as only failure is perfect so one perfect God -> one failure, and that isn't enough to create the universe.

 

If the Devil only punishes bad people in Hell why is he considered evil? Sounds to me like he is on God's pay roll.

 

1 Corinthians 8:6 - "We believe in one god, plus or minus one." (slightly paraphrased)

 

I thought it was plus two or minus one?

 

Behold the bread of life, come and eat your fill:

• "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25: 31-40

And if those words trouble you:

• "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head." Romans 12:20

I offered my understanding in order to supplement your own, and not to engage in a debate on the matter. Unfortunately, I have a tendency to be ... less than my ideals when I am online. The verses above is for you as well. Just because you don't know or remember the good that you have done, doesn't mean that God has forgotten. The devil seeks to incriminate you and make you feel guilty for the evil that you do. Don't believe what your guilt tells you. God has already forgiven you.

 

Insufficient grounds for anything beyond direct, meaningless quoting of the Bible.

Dogmatic and unverified statement, probably derived from the above quote or similar Biblical references; either way: informal fallacy, and, so, logically nonsense.

 

No no no, you've got it all backwards. It's not that the devil only punishes the BAD people, its just that God chooses only to protect the Perfect people from him.

 

I say I say I say, what if there were a repeatable cognitive experiment which supported the hypothesis that there is a God?

Would that count as science, Wayne-Scales?

I seem to recall you said that you wouldn't try the method I suggested to you because you thought you might be fooled by your own brain.

But, if you came to the same observation as others using the same technique, wouldn't that be scientific knowledge?

I wonder if you'll reconsider now you're more interested in meditation?

 

It depends on the nature of the experiment. If it just resulted in the participants experiencing an "in the presence of God" type feeling, then it would not prove that there was a God, only that people were capable of having an "in the presence of God" type feeling. And I don't think that's really disputed by anyone. Certainly not by me.

What is the experiment though? It sounds interesting.

Also, stop calling me Wayne-Scales.

 

That's hard to answer, since I don't know what form this experiment would take, &c.; but, since I know what you're getting at, I''ll say 'yes': if God became as undeniable as gravity, then it goes without saying what people's beliefs would be. However, since you mentioned an experiment which only "supports the hypothesis", and I have no idea what you actually have in mind, I'm going to say that pretty much everything we see and do supports the hypotheses that God is real, and that there's magic and miracles every second of the day, and innumerable other ridiculous interpretations; so, an experiment which only supports God's existence, and doesn't prove it, is pretty useless, a posteriori.

No, it wouldn't necessarily be. Compare a case of crowd hysteria or induced psychosis or something.

I would and I wouldn't: if I remember correctly, the experiment you mentioned was in the form of a Sanskrit poem, and, while I didn't read it very carefully, I did get the feeling that I didn't understand what the big idea was, and what I was supposed to do. Supposing that I did try it, and whatever was meant to happen, happened, I'd like to think that it could only affect the side of me that's afraid to pick up spiders or to commit suicide, and not the side that knows or thinks that spiders are actually harmless and that there's no reason not to commit suicide. I have no problem with an irrational belief in God or whatever, as long as it's realized to be irrational, like your emotions; it's when people take this too seriously and think that it's real that gets to me, and it becomes offensively stupid.

 

There are no perfect people. Not as God defines the word, anyways.

 

Emotions are frequently "rational". Cause and effect. It's the actions caused by emotions that are frequently irrational (except in the context of the emotion that is causing them).

 

There aren't and haven't been? or there never will be? I thought you said God couldn't see the future? Do you mean that it's logically impossible (a contradiction)? In what sense? Can't you imagine a perfect person? Or do you and God use the word in a different way, therefore making it senseless to say there are no perfect people in a language which differently defines the word?

If you define emotions in the ordinary way, then you're wrong; but you don't seem to be, which is fine with me (insofar as you're speaking senselessly) until you go ahead and contradict yourself in your last comment by asserting firstly that emotions are sometimes rational because of cause and effect, and then going on to say that the actions caused by these emotions (which bear the same cause to effect relation) are irrational, since if you define something to be rational due to its basis in cause and effect, and then go on to say that something with this basis is not rational, you are contradicting yourself.