I am Gay - if your god told you to murder me, would you murder me?

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 458
#211
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
It comes down to this.

You will not accept the things we say because the shamans who define your language have defined  this language(very intentionally i would say)in a manner that makes what we believe unintelligible.

You will never understand what we believe so long as you use the language as defined by the enemies of what we believe.

If you want to have an understanding of what we believe, you have to come to a common understanding of the language that we use.


Topic's author
#212
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
No, I refuse that definition because it is making an assertion while begging the question for no justifiable reasons. Its logically incoherent. 
#213
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
Rather, it is self defeating for you to deny Ultimate Reality.

The Ultimate Reality Is.

Whether you accept it or not.


Topic's author
#214
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
Why is god the same as the ultimate reality? You still haven't answered that?

If god is the ultimate reality then god is nothing more than the observable universe, which is both defining a god into existence and unnecessarily presumptious, 
#215
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
You assert that The Ultimate Reality is the observable universe.

The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on observation.

#216
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,325
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
The Binding of Isaac,
While it's true that Isaac was not sacrificed in the end, and that it seems certain God never intended him to be sacrificed in the end. He 'did still tell Abraham to sacrifice his son.

Bible has numerous different versions and translations.
Though an atheist, I pretty much translate it however I want now, as I figure the original meaning to be lost, or at least very difficult to ascertain with certainty, so what matters to me is what perspective 'I find enlightening or useful.

The Binding of Isaac,
I can view as perhaps human and child sacrifice was practiced in antiquity, and this passage of the Bible was Gods way in telling his people he knows already that they fear, respect, and revere him to such an extent. That they 'never need commit human sacrifice again to 'prove their devotion to him.
For my idea of God would be 'displeased by human and child sacrifice.

But there's 'still the problem of a man being asked to do something we'd consider immoral. . .
Hm, perhaps can be resolved by God would not have asked the same thing of a person unwilling to commit such an act, but he chose a member of his people that 'would, that he might teach him and the rest of the people, otherwise.

Though other people have different interpretations I'm sure.
I'm still an atheist, but looking for meaning in the Bible is still interesting to me, from time to time.
Though my understanding of it, on a scale 1-10, I'd rate a 1.

Anyway, end point, is that the people who say their God would not ask them to kill you, could be correct from a certain point of view. Perhaps God would only ask a conflicted person to kill you, as a way of teaching them their perspective to be wrong.
Well,
That's one view anyway, another view would be people who believe that their God 'would tell them such, and that they 'should follow such.

Topic's author
#217
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
Then what is the ultimate reality? Because even if I were to accept your first premise (that god is equivalent to such terms) then you would have to prove that the ultimate reality is more than just the observable universe, you've caused another problem for yourself
Topic's author
#218
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lemming
What about the thing with lots wife? Or the times he orders to kill cities and stuff?
#219
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Mopac
It's got very little to do with what is written in the book. It's really about not giving credibility to something that keeps people sick. 

Sick with what?
#220
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,325
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
What about it?
By that I mean, what's your question 'about it?
#221
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,432
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Look you have  had you replies pages ago. No one here would take a blind bit of notice what the bible says when I came to you or your sexuality NO ONE! 
They just can't bring themselves to admit the Old Testament is barbaric nature. They want it both ways all the time. It is as you say " ignoring the fact that Jesus says contradicting things about the old laws. "

   Jesus makes it plain on many occasions what his stance is on the mosaic law. But these Christians will rewrite and reinterpret the hole bible if that what it takes  to make god and the Scriptures come up smelling of roses every time. 
No one was cherry picking.  We simply applied the texts like they are meant to be applied. Sorry it does not suit you. 

The OT does say that homosexuality is sinful.  Yes, in the OT it even says that this covenantal sin requires covenantal death. Yet as any student of Hebrew will tell you this is talking about the maximum penalty.  The OT is not barbaric in nature. It just isn't.  And you have not even come close to proving otherwise.  

I think all OT laws are relevant except where the Cross of Jesus has fulfilled it eternally. And this does not make it irrelevant - it glorifies it - completes it - makes it real.  The OT law like NT law is a reflection of the character of God. The fact that sinners find it repulsive is because they find God repulsive and his character repulsive.  If on the other hand you decided that you did not find it repulsive and you did not find God's character repulsive - you would actually prove it wrong. That is the irony. 
#222
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,601
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret

No one was cherry picking. 
 That's all you christian ever do, yet  you are the first to complain about "cherry picking" when the shoe is on the other foot. You are hypocrites that apply double standards when it suits you to do so. As I have said many times Reverend#20 ,  Jesus makes it plain on many occasions what his stance is on the Mosaic law. But  you Christians will rewrite and reinterpret the whole bible if that what it takes  to make god and the Scriptures come up smelling of roses every time. 




No one was cherry picking. We simply applied the texts like they are meant to be applied. Sorry it does not suit you. 
 
As usual,  you couldn't be more wrong . It suits me just fine because it gives me licence to highlight your double standards perfectly and your own in particular , Reverend.#20

And I was expecting a rigorous rebuttal on this thread  considering  you claim the bible cannot "cause anything". 

The OT does say that homosexuality is sinful. 
This^^^^^^ is you in full lawyer mode#20  .  How you can attempt to play down such a grievous penalty  by trying to pass it off a as simply another "sin"shouldn't surprise or fool anyone.     It certainly doesn't fool me. 

It says homosexuality  is an "abomination" and the penalty is DEATH, stop trying to play down the gravity of this crime against god by simply calling it a "sin".  Working on the Sabbath is also a "sin" /  crime worthy of death. 

Yes, in the OT it even says that this covenantal sin requires covenantal death.

Stop with your pathetic lawyers word salad. #20    It is the Mosaic LAW that orders the death penalty, the same law Jesus said he had not come to destroy: 
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."Matthew 5:17


Yet as any student of Hebrew will tell you this is talking about the maximum penalty. 

That is correct. What other penalty does the Mosaic law OF GOD! have for committing homosexual acts that are an "abomination" to god?  Tickling till you cannot take it anymore, perhaps ? What about  marshmallow combat against the Jewish marsh mellow throwing champion in the arena?  No!  then what!?  What other penalty for homosexuality does GOD DEMAND for what he calls an "abomination"!!!?


The OT is not barbaric in nature. It just isn't.  And you have not even come close to proving otherwise.

One only has to read the OT for themselves and the killing and sentencing to death  of innocent people doesn't stop!  And is all you can tell us that it is all justified because god is god and he can do what the fk he likes. Defending the indefensible;  that is your job as a lawyer isn't it? >>>>> #20 "I am a lawyer. ".  Well  your "client" is guilty of mass fkn murder and you are trying to justify the unjustifiable. It is not working Reverend  #20 


     The OT law like NT law is a reflection of the character of God.
It does. A violent, intolerant, megalomaniac jealous god of war. 


The fact that sinners find it repulsive is because they find God repulsive and his character repulsive.
Stop trying to throw  this back on the "sinner".  GOD finds homosexuality  a criminal  "ABOMINATION", and according to GODS law the penalty for homosexuality is DEATH!!!!, no matter how you try to play it down . You have tried this devious ploy before by trying to tell us to curse ones parents means to threaten to kill them . This was you attempting to make a "sin" fit the unjust punishment of death. <<<<<<<<<<<  do you see????? MORE FKN DEATH!!!!!! The killing by this god does not stop.

  If on the other hand you decided that you did not find it repulsive and you did not find God's character repulsive - you would actually prove it wrong. That is the irony. 
Jesus makes it plain on many occasions what his stance is on the Mosaic law. But YOU Christians will rewrite and reinterpret the whole bible if that what it takes  to make god and the Scriptures come up smelling of roses every time. 



"If a man also lie with mankind, As he lieth with a woman, Both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; " (Leviticus 20:13)

“And Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.  (Acts 5:29) 




Topic's author
#223
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lemming
Really just pointing out that god, especially of the old testament, really liked human death and suffering
#224
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
I haven't created a problem for myself. 

The Ultimate Reality cannot be contingent on observation. Its existence must precede observation. Otherwise, it isn't what it is.



Topic's author
#225
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
If you have no empirical evidence of an ultimate reality that is beyond the observable universe, and no philosophically backing (which you don't) then you have no grounds at all.
#226
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,325
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Really just pointing out that god, especially of the old testament, really liked human death and suffering
I suppose one could view it that way.
But I think atheists make a mistake when they think it can 'only be viewed that way, and are then befuddled that theists 'are theists.
By that I'm just saying, lot of interpretations, takeaways, pieces.
#227
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
If there is reality as in appears to be, there must be reality as it truly is.

The Ultimate Reality is that reality as it truly is.

The observable universe would be a reality as it appears to be.



Topic's author
#228
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lemming
Well in some cases, yes, but whenever it says God literally commanded the death of cities, there is no other way to take that, he commanded the death of cities. That isn't an interpretable line. That's just the fact of what the bible says.
Topic's author
#229
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
Then god is as reality appears to be, in other words, the observable universe, in other words not god. Again, no grounding.
#230
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
You are very quick to declare victory, Mr know it all.

Are you trying to say that observation is what gives something existence?
Topic's author
#231
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
Wrong, that anything we can't observe evidence of or it doesn't. Observe - not purely as in seeing it - detecting it, measuring it, etc, etc.. Also I haven't once declared victory, that's you. Literally, every other post, "God is the truth" that is literally you. I, on the other hand, have continuously said that if you had reliable evidence to support your claims I would change my mind. Not my fault you refuse to do so.
#232
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
Of course God exists. I am certainly condescending to your ignorance.

I can't present evidence to you, because you wouldn't know what evidence is. You after all, are superstitious concerning God and unwilling to be taught different. You aleady know what God is, so that is that.

It is also the  reason you'll never understand what I believe with this attitude. It will forever be gibberish to you.


#233
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
If you believe the ultimate reality is the universe, that makes you a pantheist.

In other words, you believe God exists. 

I am not a pantheist however, I am probably more accurately described as a panentheist.
Topic's author
#234
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
Of course God exists. I am certainly condescending to your ignorance.
Haven't proven that - if anything you're the ignorant one here, not that I've actually made that claims


I can't present evidence to you, because you wouldn't know what evidence is. You after all, are superstitious concerning God and unwilling to be taught different. You aleady know what God is, so that is that.
Um, any evidence that was logically valid and true, me knowing or not knowing what it would be has no bearing on your burden to present it. No, I disagree that god is fundamentally true as a concept, that would have to be logically proven, which you have not done. I know what your god is, but you haven't proven anything regarding that god.


It is also the  reason you'll never understand what I believe with this attitude. It will forever be gibberish to you.
What attitude? Not accepting blank assertions? How about this - I believe that the emerald tiger of Bazeathabe - who is defined as the ultimate reality - is the one who created the universe. Do you believe me?
Topic's author
#235
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
 you believe the ultimate reality is the universe, that makes you a pantheist.
Well, that is what ultimate reality is, but still no. We have a word for the observable universe, it's called the observable universe, you would have to prove that too. Also, that would still be defining god into existence, so still no.


In other words, you believe God exists. .
Nope, that's you being arrogant, and ironically trying to be a know-it-all, but you don't know it all.


I am not a pantheist however, I am probably more accurately described as a panentheist.
I'm not sure what the difference is, I'm guessing its somewhere along the lines that the ultimate reality is made up of the physical realm and the spiritual? Well you'd need more proof for that.
#236
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,511
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Mopac
Some aspects of human cognition and behavior appear unusual or exaggerated relative to those of other intelligent, warm-blooded, long-lived social species. One collection of such related features is our remarkable ability for ignoring or denying reality in the face of clear facts, a high capacity for self-deception and false beliefs, overarching optimism bias, and irrational risk-taking behavior.
#237
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well, this is what it boils down to.

Because you won't accept that the word "God" with a capital "G" refers to ultimate reality, you won't ever be talking about the same thing as me.

I cannot provide evidence to support your superstitions.

Topic's author
#238
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Mopac
Why should it? I legitimately don't see a reason to support that definition. Because a religion says that's the definition? Well then its an assertion and has to be proved.
#239
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,325
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Just give the quote/passage/words,
And I'll give my opinion.
#240
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Mopac



Mopac,

YOUR STEP IN POO QUOTE IN POST #237 ONCE AGAIN: "Because you won't accept that the word "God" with a capital "G" refers to ultimate reality, you won't ever be talking about the same thing as me."
 
In turn, when YOU don't accept in using the name of God, which is Jesus, then you will never be talking about "which God" you are referring too, GET IT BIBLE FOOL?  "God" refers to Yahweh, Jesus, and Allah, the remaining Gods in societies today, do you understand you blatant Biblical fool???!  Therefore, show respect to Jesus the serial killer and use His NAME instead of His TITLE for Christ's sake!

Mopac, at what point do you just save further embarrassment and either change your moniker, or just leave this forum altogether in biblical disgrace?  Inquiring minds want to know!



.