last day (16 days later) » 

2:02 PM
3
A: Why did God need to plant the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden in the first place?

wax eagleGod planted the tree for the same reason he has done everything else on this planet. So that he might be glorified all the more. God is an intensely selfish God. He demands worship and honor and glory. He has created this world as a vessel so that he might be worshiped. He ordained the rebelli...

 
@Atheist - note that he does not "need" worship. He merely likes/wants/demands it. Its not that God needed to create, he just wanted to. He could have just destroyed Satan (or even not ordained him) but he wanted to glory from that and thus he has allowed him to exist (and in fact ordained for him to exist in the first place).
@Atheist I think what we have here is a failure to understand the implications of a perfect/omnipotent/omniscient being. Trying to compare God and how he works with our human existence (including your example) is pretty feeble. However lets go with a different comparison. Lets look at God as a king. He has subjects from all over the land. As his subjects come in to him they put gifts at his feet. Some bring what they can, he treasures even the lowest gift (for instance someone who makes rag balls brings their finest creation, still just a rag ball). However a man comes and brings no tribute.
-> cont'd. The man who brings no tribute is thrown in jail and hanged. If God is a king and deserving of our worship then we should bring to him whatever we have, even if all we can do is present him with rag balls.
room topic changed to Discussion of how a perfect God still needs our worship.: Imported from a comment discussion on christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3740/… [eden] [genesis]
@Atheist let me know when you make it here, i'd love to continue this
 
2:14 PM
@Atheist I am :)
@Atheist interested in your response to my analogy
@Atheist no this is a rich and powerful man, someone the king demanded a tribute of
this is someone who can afford the tribute
@Atheist no he sent out a written edict, to all of the lands
and he sent messengers
but his edicts were ignored, his messengers spat upon and scoffed at
@Atheist ? less reach out and (in my beliefs) snatch you from the pit of hell and make you one of his own :)
he did send his son into his kingdom to collect his tribute, but his son and his small band of followers were also scoffed at spat upon and finally killed.
@Atheist ?
@Atheist great question. In fact that king has revealed himself, through his prophets, through his son, through his gracious rule. There is only one king and the various userpers who are attempting to take that thrown know it too. They are all corrupt in various ways (including some who claim to serve the true king).
have you ever seen the leader of your country in person? have you shaken his hands? has he personally asked you to pay taxes? you still pay your taxes right?
@Atheist what if I told you God was the same way? In fact even more obvious and more easily seen and heard? Perhaps less easily understood, but even easier to access?
One of the more interesting concepts is the idea of General Revelation. That creation contains all that is needed to believe in God and be saved. (if you are silent these very rocks will cry out....etc)
@Atheist ?
@Atheist man if I had a good answer to that. Here are a few partial reasons.
1. The Church was founded by humans sinful beings at their core.
2. Different people will understand the same concept in different ways
3. Expansion through division, by having small disagreements the church has spread.
4. We are prone to squabbling over minor details.
however most churches agree on the major issues and disagree on some minor ones that have little to do with the larger message.
I think point 2 may be the biggest one, certain denominations are really good at expressing certain points, and others at expressing other points. No one has it entirely correct, but at the same time the different emphasis if different churches may help spread the message by reaching different kinds of people
(this doesn't even include the fact that some church splits have been due to false teachings)
@Atheist Basically that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that is what saves us. Believing in him is the only way to salvation. That is pretty much the crux of Salvation
@Atheist yup.
@Atheist have you ever been perfect?
even for a minute?
@Atheist can you imagine being perfect? and then suddenly getting the weight of 10 billion (conservatively) years of sin and imperfection loaded onto your shoulders. Being and immortal and then being dead for 3 days? Can you imagine what 3 days feels like when you are outside of time? Can you imagine being forsaken by your father who has until this moment loved you perfectly?
the sacrifice was not in the dying, that was only temporary, the sacrifice was in the taking on of our sins and the even momentary disconnect with his father.
yeah he had to die, but that was trivial compared to what he went through in those 3 days he was dead
@Atheist you ask some good questions. Hard questions.
@Atheist yes he is god himself. However he gave up parts of that to become human, he received them again when he ascended back into heaven, but there was a measure of separation in being a human being. This was further exacerbated by his death etc.
Remember that we don't fully understand how the trinity functions. they are three distinct persons of one being.
@Atheist yes they do
@Atheist yup
 
 
2 hours later…
4:36 PM
hey @atheist, thanks for ruining my evening, I just watched your video about Evidentialist Foundationalism and now I must watch the others too ;)
 
5:03 PM
@Atheist: and what if, down one of those paths, you found evidence that the God you were looking for had travelled that way, too? Or that the God you were looking for was travelling with you?
 
5:15 PM
@Atheist yeah I definitely see the point. Its why I don't believe Pascal's wager works for modern religion
you better be sure if the direction you are going else you are wasting your time.
@Atheist basically I am sure because I believe Christianity is different from all other religions. Something in the sermon that I heard yesterday is actually relevant here.
You cannot be too bad to get into the kingdom of heaven, but you can be too good.
I think Christianity might be the only religion in the world where that statement can be made
@Atheist glad you asked :).
how much of the first 4 books of the NT have you read?
@Atheist excellent this will be easy.
ok, you know the pharasees? the religious leaders of the Jews who were basically all about keeping the law fully?
@Atheist basically they took their goodness so far that they actually missed the boat. They were too good (or perhaps too moral) for Christ
however Matthew, Zachheus (both tax collectors), prostitutes, fishermen. folks who knew they were bad were open and accepting of Christs' teachings
@Atheist the problem was that they 1. didn't see that they were sinful 2. sought to be saved by keeping the law. The point Jesus was making when he talked about more restrictive laws (like in the sermon on the mount) was that the law was unkeepable
@Atheist God's law is unkeepable. As in no one can ever be good enough to follow God's law completely. That's why we needed Christ in the first place. Right, but that doesn't mean it can be kept
@Atheist why did the Hebrews make sacrifices? Some of them were for atonement because they couldn't keep the law then.
@Atheist I'm saying that as Christians we are free from the restriction of the law.
Many of God's laws have been fulfilled, many of them are civil laws, and many of them are still applicable today
@Atheist sort of...it means that when we do break the law its already atoned for. It also means that we shouldn't feel restricted. Where are you going?
another thing is that as Christians we are no longer supposed to want to break the law.
 
6:02 PM
@Atheist indeed it is. and it certainly is the most appealing aspect. Its actually one of the major reasons Chrisitanity is different than other religions
@Atheist by fulfilled I mean completed. If you believe that the Old Testament was part one of a two part story then some of the plot lines that were started in the first part have been tied up, we are done with them. For instance I (although others disagree) believe that God is done with Isreal as a nation, -> all of the civil laws of Israel are fulfilled. All of the ceremonial laws (the sacrifices, kosher laws, etc) were pointing to Christ he came, they are fulfilled.
those plot lines are wrapped up.
@Atheist I see
@Atheist let me be very clear here, because I think Christians start talking about Grace and muddy the waters. We do not reject personal responsibility, either temporal or eternal. Yes Christians will go to heaven, but that doesn't mean they aren't responsible for what they do here, particularly here on earth. The Bible also seems to fairly clearly state that there is some kind of pecking order in Heaven as well.
@Atheist who knows. Here are some things we know. 1. we won't be in heaven forever, God is going to destroy/cleanse the earth and remake it and we will return to the earth. 2. we are going to worship God a lot.
I'd imagine that our lives will look at lot like Adam and Eve's pre-fall. We will probably have some kind of job and I'm certain we will have plenty of recreation, we will spend a lot of time eating and drinking and being merry.
@Atheist based on whats been said in revelation it sounds lavish, but honestly no its not well defined, just that its way better than the alternative :)
@Atheist lol none of that is inherently sinful. Drugs are sinful right now because the laws of the land prohibit them. But sex (inside marriage) and booze are certainly not prohibited.
@Atheist no way
and this would not be like church at all. Its the fulfillment of church (there is that word again...). Sure church is pointing to what things will be like in heaven, but worship takes many forms.
@Atheist yeah its unfortunate. the Catholics believe this so culturally you could say most. However its not a common belief among protestants (and the scriptural evidence cited is incredibly thin...)
@Atheist well abstinence is much less about protection and much more about the idea that sex is only proper inside of a marriage. That is the larger evangelical purpose for abstinence.
 
6:20 PM
well, this doesn't work either
 
@BeatMe true, because its attempting to legislate/teach a morality not shared by much of the population...
 
then why continue to teach that instead of offering proper sex ed?
 
@BeatMe because there is a huge evangelical lobby :)
 
abstinence could be taught in places where this "morality" should be shared by most, like in churches ;)
 
@BeatMe agreed that its a better plan, unfortunately not all evangelicals (in fact it seems like nearly none of them) share this point of view.
 
6:24 PM
yay, we agree ;)
 
@Atheist oh the context issues there. But that isn't even my biggest issue. Issue one is attempting to impose human morals onto God.
@Atheist not saying its a non argument, not saying they are beyond our understanding. I'm saying he isn't bound by our morals
If you take God's actions in a vacuum as this video is doing, he is horrible.
@Atheist no I wouldn't. God is not moral though, that is my whole entire point.
God is not moral.
God is perfect this goes beyond morals.
morals in fact are an arbitrary human construct.
@Atheist not what I'm saying. God gave us morality. Its actually a gift (its called Common grace)
its why we are not completely lawless and wreckless.
God is not bound by our laws or our morality.
 
he gave us morality and didn't thought we might find his actions unmoral?
 
6:39 PM
@BeatMe I'm sure he saw that coming :) hard to omniscient and not :P. However he isn't concerned with what people think either :)
@Atheist yes construct, like a lattice, not construct like constructed by humans
 
youtube.com/… please listen to that argument again
 
@Atheist which one did he break?
@Atheist read a real translation please
@Atheist thats a very common mistranslation. the command is "do not murder."
 
oh please not that again
 
@Atheist yes, if they were actually innocent
 
they had the wrong parents, how can that be guilty?
 
6:49 PM
@BeatMe even better everyone deserves to die, we are all guilty
@Atheist only if you are qualified as a judge and jury
@Atheist civil authority and personal authority are 2 different things
I can't go around killing people because I don't have the authority. The government can try and kill people because they do. God can kill anyone because he can rightly judge anyone (again we are all guilty)
 
You can't get a christian to say their god is immoral. That video covered this, it's easy to create elaborate reasoning to justify his actions. 'He works in mysterious ways'.
 
well, the bible does command to kill a woman who is not a virgin in her wedding night
 
@Atheist I don't think so. however killing in a war is again civil authority vs personal authority.
 
@waxeagle, it all comes to the one point. You and I recognize if someone is doing a bad/immoral/unjust thing, but if god comes into play, you declare him perfect and it must actually be a good/moral/just thing
thats simply not logical
 
@BeatMe lol yes and no. I start from a position of God is perfect and we are not. From there Any punishment God decides to mete out on humanity is deserved. This is my whole entire point. If all are guilty of sin in God's eyes, then all are deserving of punishment.
 
6:55 PM
killing childs, commanding cannibalism is a bad thing, no matter who does it
 
@BeatMe lol where does he actually command canibalism? he pronounces it as a curse, not a command.
 
thanks ;)
 
@BeatMe :)...
 
and I really don't care if those are out of context, this is always bad
@waxeagle, whats your stance on the death sentence in the usa?
 
Note that this is all in the context of siege warfare, a common practice for a long long time. God is vividly describing the sieges he will lay against his people.
@BeatMe ambivalent
I don't believe it to be unethical or immoral, but I don't fall strongly on one side or another
in a long siege cannibalism was not uncommon, lets remember cultural contexts here.
 
7:07 PM
no matter in what circumstances and cultural context, this is always a immoral thing
and this is ought to be Gods words
 
@BeatMe immoral sure, but on whose part? the siegers or the siegees?? were sieges alwasy immoral?
 
on gods part
 
@BeatMe are you saying warfare is immoral? That these particular wars were immoral?
 
yes?
 
@BeatMe do you think morality has changed at all in the time humanity has been on the earth?
@Atheist ok, siege warfare in 1000 BC immoral or moral?
 
7:12 PM
how can morals change if god gave them to us?
and yes, morality has evolved
 
@BeatMe not saying they have been constant, just that we were given enough to keep from killing each other.
 
that didn't work obviously ;)
 
@Atheist lol, nice jump :).
@Atheist the word of God is living and active sharper than any 2 edged sword :).
 
Affirming your beliefs helps combat cognitive dissonance
 
@CiscoIPPhone :)
@Atheist I've only got a minute so make it quick :)
@Atheist ? so plato and aristotle don't have value either? Is shakspear too old as well?
Surely Josephus is of no value either.
@Atheist sure, but we do still find value in his work do we not?
I really have to dash, look forward to continuing this tonight or tomorrow.
@Atheist ciao
 
7:31 PM
@atheist, do you know why you're name (that is different than on SO) still shows up here?
I changed my "screenname" in christianity.SE, but here in the chat my SO-name is shown
hmm, now I changed my email, but after clicking on chat i'm on my beatme-account again
ok ;)
still watching your videos :D
oh I had lengthy discussions with jonathan
yep
but hey, some just don't want to be "saved" from blind faith
I just gave up arguing with jonathan, his world would be shattered without god, so be it
 
8:06 PM
the same like some people in noth korea don't want to move into another country
 

  last day (16 days later) »