The Limits of Empathy!

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by heartc

Why, when he answered your prayer, didn't he answer the prayer of a Christian child in some part of Africa who starved to death? Does he only answer prayers where the solution of the problem can come about by natural means, or does he employ super-natural means to answer prayer?

First question - How do you know he didn't answer the prayer of a starving child in Africa? Do you know what the child prayed for? Perhaps not to be hungry anymore? So the Lord, in his mercy - chose to call the child Home where he or she would never suffer hunger again. A prayer answered - just not in the way you thought "it should be". As for how God answers prayer - it can be either through natural or supernatural means.

If the former, how do you know he did it, and can you explain why he is limiting himself in such a way nowadays, assuming that the many supernatural wonders told in the Bible were factual.
If the later, can you please document the case and answer the question why he doesn't regrow the legs of amputees and why there is not something like mana falling from the sky on the Christian communities in Africa.

First - your laying a logical trap. Your asking a finite human with limited knowledge to explain the infinite and all-knowing. Logically - that is impossible. There is no way a human can understand or explain the mind of the Lord.

However - your questions also make assumptions that are designed to "load" the question. How many miracles are listed in the Bible? How many people lived during those times - compared to today? Who is to say that the Lord is not performing miracles every day (like curing "incurable" cancer") just as many as before? With the population what it is - it simply doesn't "register" on your local news.....

As for why certain miracles don't happen - again your asking for an explanation of the mind of the Almighty. Still, if you choose to believe the Biblical history - there were many times when the Lord provided only to have people turn from Him. Now if you had experienced the same thing over and over - why would YOU continue to provide knowing that it will not bring the people closer to you? Why would you give knowing it would be unappreciated and taken for granted in a short time? Most people wouldn't. Your saying that you expect God to do so - even as you question who and what God is.....How can you have an expectation of something you clearly say you don't understand?

Define good and evil. Is a "good" deed good because God likes it, or does God like good deeds because they are good?

Its good because it fits with His will. The problem here is your trying to apply your limited perspective and ethical view to something much bigger than you. You see the trees, but not the forest.

According to the Bible, God ordered the Israelites multiple times to ransack, pillage and loot neighbouring cities and to leave no living thing therein alive (genocide). On other occasions, he ordered them to kill everybody except for the virgin girls, which instead should be taken by the men. On yet other occasions, he hardened the heart of someone so that this person was unable to do good and / or unable to see. A prominent example for this is of course the Pharao in the Book of Exodus. According to God's own words, he hardened the heart of the Pharao, preventing him from letting the Israelites go, so that he could conduct a demonstration of his glory by unleashing a number of plagues on the Egyptians, culminating in the wholesale slaughter of every single firstborn in all of Egypt, human and animal, by the angel of God, and only then lead the Israelites out of Egypt.

Emphasis added to specific portions.

Pharoah was given numerous opportunities to let the Israelites go. In Exodus 4, the Lord instructs Abraham to tell Pharoah what the ultimate cost of his rebellion will be if he does not let them leave. This is before any of the plagues. 6 times in Exodus did Pharoah harden his own heart and refuse - even given supernatural signs and wonders - that he was outmatched on every level. He was warned - and he chose multiple times to disobey. The Lord is not a liar - His judgement upon Egypt was as He said it would be. The Lord does not threaten - He promises. Once the line was crossed then the full gamut of His righteous anger was kindled and would be seen.

God also demanded the death penalty for gays and for rebellious teenagers, among others.

In the OT this was a demand of law upon the government. Such activity threatened the bloodline of Christ. While the individuals were free to reject salvation to come - their actions could not be allowed to toss it for everyone. Thus the law. In the NT, read Romans 1:26, 27 - since the Christ has come, the Lord allows nature to take its course and afflict the sinners with the natural outcome.

And people wonder today why AIDS (which initiall primarily afflicted gays and drug users - another group that defiles the body) has proven so hard to eradicate....

Rebellious teenagers: Context is important. Read Deuteronomy 21 - starting with verse 10. It tells a man the cost of what he can endure and must do in some cases should he choose to take a wife as spoil from a victory in battle. It lays out the costs long term. It is a warning and advisement. It is also important to realize that nowhere does it is say "teenager". Moses - who is credited with writing the Book, died at 120yrs of age. A "son" often lived with the family for most of their life - well into adult years of 40 or more. This is dealing with the rebellion of an adult son who continues to violate the Law. It is a matter of sooner or later with such a person. If the parents don't do it first, the Law will end up doing it later, after others have suffered the consequences of the rebel's insubordination.

Are these good and just actions?

Good? Depends on the perspective. From the Lord's - obviously yes. Just? Well, the Israelites had been slaves in Egypt for how long? Killed or sold as cattle? A few deaths in recompense are more than called for in the judicial view of the time - and the one espoused by God.

There's only three possible answers:

No - there are 4 possible answers.

D) The Lord, being infinite, omniscient and omnipotent just doesn't play by the rules you do, doesn't think like you do and doesn't conform to any standard us limited humans can fully comprehend.

[Gerald]

I would probably say that there is more than four options, everything depends on the person .... and there are a number of people on earth, with hindsight, so let the person's internal control what he or she thinks.

[CaptainMattJ.]

if it makes you happier, if it gives you an easier time of finding happiness, whether false or not, go for it. i have no problem with people believing in such things.

I have a problem with the idiocy that comes with such beliefs. That homosexuals should be stripped of their right to do what they want to do, to kill millions because of religion, to denounce evolution merely because your faith says that god created everything, ect. so on and so forth.

once you strip away all religious "reasoning", you simply have the naked view of hatred and persecution. People fall back on religion when bashing homosexuals, but when their contradictory and false views on the subject are seen through and broken, then they have nothing to fall back on. their obvious persecution simply because of their sexual preference is shown to all. Then they shall be the ones persecuted for being so intolerant and idiotic.

Or killing in the name of the "lord". Jews have been blamed for the wrongdoings of others for thousands of years. The immensely bloody crusades, the holocaust, all wasnt truly about religion. They simply used religion as a faux excuse for taking more and more from other people.

Oh, god wants us to kill these people because they believe something different. Why do YOU CARE. its THEIR life. If they want to be homosexuals, what right is it of yours to invade THEIR rights and persecute them for their life choice. what right is it of yours to kill people because they believe something different.

religion is terrible. Because people allow other human beings (fallible, corrupt, greedy human beings) to dictate What they should believe is nothing more than a plague on society.

Believe what you WANT to believe. dont let anyone else tell you otherwise. If you want to believe in a god, absolutely believe in that god. Dont let people dictate the confines of belief. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hinduism, ect. they are all a confined belief system that only leads to persecution and hate.

such is why I denounce religion. believe, but dont let a religious group tell you the confines of your belief.

Ridiculous stories such as the garden of eden, or god creates the world in 7 days, ect. is all just human corruption for power. id rather believe in a god who simply created the universe and let the universe run its course, than god creating man and woman and placing them into a garden of perfection, or creating the world in a single stroke of 7 days, or judging you and letting mankind bow to his all powerful greatness.

Because science has shown time and time again that mankind couldnt have been created from nothing in such a form or the world cant be created in 7 days, it has shown the fallacy of confined religions.

It seems ridiculous to me that so many people, in this age of science, could still believe some of the things produced from men that are just absurd...

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And people wonder today why AIDS (which initiall primarily afflicted gays and drug users - another group that defiles the body) has proven so hard to eradicate....

You forgot those god-damned people who need blood transfusions, Mr. Falwell. Guess it was god's way to punish people with weak bodies.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by sidslotm

Everyone finds out for themselves on the last day, that's when you judge yourself for what your are in the presence of God, no one escapes.

No one finds out anything on the last day, because you're dead and that's it.

No, I don't believe that any more than I believe your version. My point is that I don't know, and neither do you. You believe, and you believe your belief has sense behind it, but in the long run we don't know.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

First - your laying a logical trap. Your asking a finite human with limited knowledge to explain the infinite and all-knowing. Logically - that is impossible. There is no way a human can understand or explain the mind of the Lord.

His question wasn't a logical trap at all. Your answer assumes that there is indeed a God. You don't know this to be true, any more than the atheist actually knows it to be false. Your "logic" is based on faith, and is therefore no logic at all. It only makes sense if it's true, and we don't know that.

However - your questions also make assumptions that are designed to "load" the question. How many miracles are listed in the Bible? How many people lived during those times - compared to today? Who is to say that the Lord is not performing miracles every day (like curing "incurable" cancer") just as many as before? With the population what it is - it simply doesn't "register" on your local news.....

Unfortunately that argument still has the same problem. How many miracles are listed in the Illiad? How many times does cancer just go away for no apparent reason? The answer is that we don't know. You can ascribe it to God. That doesn't make it so. It also doesn't make it not so, but justifying it as if you know for a fact it's real also doesn't make it so. Again, you have no logic or reason to fall back on, just faith. You may be right - I don't know. But to assume you're right and use that as an arguing point is an invalid assumption, faulty logic and bad reasoning.

As for why certain miracles don't happen - again your asking for an explanation of the mind of the Almighty.

No, he's asking why one person claims to have actually seen God when the vast majority have not. Is it because the vast majority of us are evil? Possibly. Is it because the vast majority don't have enough faith, or place their faith in the wrong God? Maybe. Is it because, as you believe, that God's reasons are his own and it's not for us to know, or to question. Could be. I'm not challenging your faith, because I don't know that you're wrong. I am challenging your misuse of reason to defend what no one can see (except apparently the chosen few), and to attempt to explain what you say cannot be explained.

Still, if you choose to believe the Biblical history - there were many times when the Lord provided only to have people turn from Him. Now if you had experienced the same thing over and over - why would YOU continue to provide knowing that it will not bring the people closer to you? Why would you give knowing it would be unappreciated and taken for granted in a short time? Most people wouldn't. Your saying that you expect God to do so - even as you question who and what God is.....How can you have an expectation of something you clearly say you don't understand?[/quote]
Or it's an attempt to explain why bad things happen, and the authors didn't have any more clue that we do. Heartc doesn't have an expectation of God, he just asked why. You don't have an explanation, other than "God works in mysterious ways". That's no explanation at all.

Its good because it fits with His will. The problem here is your trying to apply your limited perspective and ethical view to something much bigger than you. You see the trees, but not the forest.

In this respect none of sees anything at all. People like me ask questions. People like you see every question as a challenge. The problem there of course is that some of the questioners really disbelieve, rather than not believe, and they really are challenging rather than questioning. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd like to see some genuine evidence, and I haven't yet.

Pharoah was given numerous opportunities to let the Israelites go.

If it really happened at all. There's no evidence outside the Bible.

And people wonder today why AIDS (which initiall primarily afflicted gays and drug users - another group that defiles the body) has proven so hard to eradicate....

I would agree, but I still have to ask: Is there the slightest evidence beyond your belief that this as anything to do with God?

D) The Lord, being infinite, omniscient and omnipotent just doesn't play by the rules you do, doesn't think like you do and doesn't conform to any standard us limited humans can fully comprehend.

Or The Lord doesn't exist at all, and everything is what it is because it is. Again, I don't know that you're wrong, but you keep assuming that you're right. I suppose you have to if you want to continue believing, but you fall far off base when you criticize someone else's "logic".

[Skybird]

People do not necessarily do something good (for which they may be perceived as being empathically acting) becasue it is "good, but because it makes them feel good themselves.

And yesterday or the day before a short article caught my attentiuon in a German newspaper, an empirical study done by a German university in cooperation with a British university and Germany's biggest serious online partner agency, basing on a dataset of 200,000 entries. They say the empirical finding is overwhelming that religions do not make people feel good and more optimistic and "safe" in life, but thast people may feel like that indeed if they are in the company of other people sharing their views. And these views can be religious of this or that kind, or completely areligious. It is about the shared opinion, the similiarity of the other.

And when you see somebody jumping into the water to rescue somebody drowning - why does he do that: is it due to empathy or due to a "phobia" of seeing somebody dying, or is it because the rescuer knows the drowning person is a rich multimillionaire who can pay him a fat reward, or is the rescuer hoping to collect some good karma or some heavnly cash hat will help him to pass the gate to poaradise once he has died?

And from my experiences of having been in so many therapy training sessions when I studied psychology, and having heared so many students and psychologists and social helpers: I would claim that many who will be seen as helpful or empathic, in fact are just acting in conformity with this or that form of deamnds expected from that, namely expectations that in a way could be seen as politically correctness issues, and since they are not aware of that they fall under the rule of such demands and then obey it's dogma more or less unconditionally. After I got my diploma and worked - for free - iun several projects for some time, I quit psychology for several reasons, idealistic and pragmatic reasons - and I have my reasons why I never have wept a single tear about that decision.

Beyond that, hjaving seen some bits of the world and having the better part of my statistical life expectancy behind me, I would never ever claim again - like I did as a late teen interested in Buddhism - that man in principle is good and a "creature of light". I think you can trust and place your money on the darkness also being part of man always showing up in this way or the other, and so I only believe in some good in some people.

Everything in the world seems to be dualistic, andf the older I get, the more I realise how far the valdity of that claim indeed goes. Look up, and you define by that: down; say "good" and realise that only has a meaning when you define "bad"; construct something and see it falling apart sooner or later; what exists, will seize to exist; where nothing seems to have been, suddenly something appears; every action has reaction and what force you inflict inevitably returns.

One should be careful to deal and to think in absolutes - especially when aiming at terms like "good", "well", "social", "just" - and also this "empathy". These terms often can - and do - bring out the worst in man.

Now, should I go and collect some Dr. House quotes about the good and empathic in man...?

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

His question wasn't a logical trap at all. Your answer assumes that there is indeed a God.

The question is a logical trap Steve. You can't ask for an explanation of something that doesn't exist in the context of a debate. The question itself establishes (for the sake of the discussion purpose) that the subject - in this case - God, exists.

Its one thing to say "prove God exists". Its another to say "explain God to me". The first questions the existence of the subject, the second question is based on the accepted existence of the subject.

My answer assumes there is a God based upon his question.

You can't debate why concrete ships can float if one debate team refuses to recognize that concrete exists to start with.

Unfortunately that argument still has the same problem. How many miracles are listed in the Illiad? How many times does cancer just go away for no apparent reason? The answer is that we don't know. You can ascribe it to God. That doesn't make it so. It also doesn't make it not so, but justifying it as if you know for a fact it's real also doesn't make it so.

Heartc's post specifically referenced the Bible, and thus that is the best source to answer him from. The example of miracles in the Illiad don't apply since that was not part of the debate. Were it considered a valid source of information about the Xtian Diety, then maybe it could apply. Since it is not, it doesn't. Now your right that "we don't know".

Again, you have no logic or reason to fall back on, just faith.

I know by faith - which is not tangible or provable. So I accept the point your making here. However, reason does apply. Like every other believer, I have questioned too. Reason is part of what makes faith so powerful. There is a logical, straightforward path in faith if you truly seek it. But that isn't something I can give to anyone - it must be sought after individually.

No, he's asking why one person claims to have actually seen God when the vast majority have not. Is it because the vast majority of us are evil? Possibly. Is it because the vast majority don't have enough faith, or place their faith in the wrong God? Maybe. Is it because, as you believe, that God's reasons are his own and it's not for us to know, or to question. Could be. I'm not challenging your faith, because I don't know that you're wrong. I am challenging your misuse of reason to defend what no one can see (except apparently the chosen few), and to attempt to explain what you say cannot be explained.

Now perhaps I misread what Castout said - but I think he said he has seen the GLORY of God. Now what that means to him, I can't say. I have seen the glory of God many times - but I have never seen God. But then again, some of what I would call the glory of the Almighty, others might just call a sunrise or a medically unexplained mystery. Like all else, perspective is individual.

Or it's an attempt to explain why bad things happen, and the authors didn't have any more clue that we do. Heartc doesn't have an expectation of God, he just asked why. You don't have an explanation, other than "God works in mysterious ways". That's no explanation at all.

I disagree. The question was basically "are these good and just actions" by God in reference to various raised issues. My answer was not that "God works in mysterious ways" - my answer was yes they are - because the Almighty (whose presence is, for the discussion, established by the mere question) chooses it to be. The question of "why" is then answered with the fact that God sees the forest while we see the trees. The question is about the Abrahamic God, so the attributes of that Diety as described in the source document we are using (the Bible) are fair for me to point out in relation to our own, more limited human viewpoint.

People like me ask questions. People like you see every question as a challenge. The problem there of course is that some of the questioners really disbelieve, rather than not believe, and they really are challenging rather than questioning. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd like to see some genuine evidence, and I haven't yet.

I took the question as an opportunity to help make clear the issues raised. Yes, there was a tone of disbelief in the questions. Still, maybe a bit will help someone - either a believer be stronger in their faith, or a sinner come a little closer to the Lord.

As for proof - the only proof is what you experience for yourself. Otherwise you have to wait for the Tribulation. I am guessing that a really sizable portion of the world's population just disappearing without a trace is pretty good proof. Honestly, I would hope that no one has to deal with the aftermath though as a new believer, but there will be those that do.

If it really happened at all. There's no evidence outside the Bible.

Actually there is some proof, but irrefutable proof means we would have to be able to see it happen, and that isn't in the cards. However, the questions regarding the plagues specifically are from the Bible. Why is it inappropriate to answer a question based upon Scripture with other Scripture? Not sure what the problem here is.

I would agree, but I still have to ask: Is there the slightest evidence beyond your belief that this as anything to do with God?

Circumstancial evidence, yes. Direct, smoking gun evidence, no.
If you want to delve into that subject, we can.

Or The Lord doesn't exist at all, and everything is what it is because it is. Again, I don't know that you're wrong, but you keep assuming that you're right. I suppose you have to if you want to continue believing, but you fall far off base when you criticize someone else's "logic".

Herein lies the problem with that arguement: Science cannot explain what was before the big bang. It cant explain where the matter came from to have a big bang. It cant explain why - against unfathomable odds, single cell life came into being. It can't explain why, again challenging unfathomable odds, you and I can sit here as human being's on a world that works for us, able to communicate, able to appreciate the majesty of the mountains or hear the babbling of a stream. Science just can't come up with a full construct of how everything simply WORKS. The odds against it all coming together "as it is" is beyond the human mind to wrap around. Yet here we are. THAT defies logic.

So I look at an answer that makes more sense. The "chances" that there is an intelligent mind behind it all, that designed it and all the wonderful, cool interconnects - beyond what we can take in all at once (but we continue to learn and be astounded) is a lot more likely. The way the universe works is just too wondrous - too amazing - for it to have happened randomly. Everywhere you look you can see the design behind it. To look at what science knows about the universe, about the human brain, about atomic particles or gravity or thousands of other things and deny a design boggles the mind.

E=MC2 is a bit much for random chance, don't you think?

However - yes - for the sake of the discussion I "assumed" I am right, because the question is predicated on me being right about the existence of the Almighty.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The question is a logical trap Steve. You can't ask for an explanation of something that doesn't exist in the context of a debate. The question itself establishes (for the sake of the discussion purpose) that the subject - in this case - God, exists.

I still disagree (but of course you knew that). Of course heartc had to use the Bible, since the claim was God is good. If God ordered his subjects to murder, rape and pillage, how is that good. The answer that we cannot know the mind of God is ducking the question, not answering it. If you truly believe that to be true (and I admit that it may be), then it does answer the question for you. But to someone asking why that should be so it truly is no help, and seems evasive at best.

Its one thing to say "prove God exists". Its another to say "explain God to me". The first questions the existence of the subject, the second question is based on the accepted existence of the subject.

I could be wrong, but I don't think heartc was asking for an explanation, but challenging the assumptions of people who make claims about God, based either on personal experience or the reading of scripture.

My answer assumes there is a God based upon his question.

I can see your point in that, but I think his motive was different.

You can't debate why concrete ships can float if one debate team refuses to recognize that concrete exists to start with.

I'll leave that one alone, since it's obviously unanswerably true. But I still think it's a diversion from his intent.

Heartc's post specifically referenced the Bible, and thus that is the best source to answer him from. The example of miracles in the Illiad don't apply since that was not part of the debate. Were it considered a valid source of information about the Xtian Diety, then maybe it could apply. Since it is not, it doesn't. Now your right that "we don't know".

Your reference to miracles pointed up the fact that there are a lot more people now than there were then, and an intimation that there may be a lot of miracles now that go unnoticed. My point was that other ancient books also contain incidents of divine intervention, yet we dismiss those as "fables" and "stories", and don't even suggest that they might be real.

I know by faith - which is not tangible or provable. So I accept the point your making here. However, reason does apply. Like every other believer, I have questioned too. Reason is part of what makes faith so powerful. There is a logical, straightforward path in faith if you truly seek it. But that isn't something I can give to anyone - it must be sought after individually.

Accepted as true.

Now perhaps I misread what Castout said - but I think he said he has seen the GLORY of God. Now what that means to him, I can't say. I have seen the glory of God many times - but I have never seen God. But then again, some of what I would call the glory of the Almighty, others might just call a sunrise or a medically unexplained mystery. Like all else, perspective is individual.

Fair enough.

I disagree. The question was basically "are these good and just actions" by God in reference to various raised issues. My answer was not that "God works in mysterious ways" - my answer was yes they are - because the Almighty (whose presence is, for the discussion, established by the mere question) chooses it to be. The question of "why" is then answered with the fact that God sees the forest while we see the trees. The question is about the Abrahamic God, so the attributes of that Diety as described in the source document we are using (the Bible) are fair for me to point out in relation to our own, more limited human viewpoint.

You didn't use that exact phrase, but you did say that the answers were unknowable, which to me is similar if not the same. My point is that there are no observable answers to these questions, and in reference to the challenge concerning God's orders it was probably meant to be taken that the true question wasn't "Why would God give those orders?", but "Why would anyone claiming to be good give such orders", implying that the more likely answer is that the stories were created to justify human actions. Likewise when things go badly for the 'Chosen People' the only answer for them is "We must have done something to offend God, or else we would have won."

I took the question as an opportunity to help make clear the issues raised. Yes, there was a tone of disbelief in the questions. Still, maybe a bit will help someone - either a believer be stronger in their faith, or a sinner come a little closer to the Lord.

I can't fault that logic. If you believe, you need to help others believe.

As for proof - the only proof is what you experience for yourself. Otherwise you have to wait for the Tribulation. I am guessing that a really sizable portion of the world's population just disappearing without a trace is pretty good proof. Honestly, I would hope that no one has to deal with the aftermath though as a new believer, but there will be those that do.

That assumes that the Rapture will come before the Tribulation, which has been the subject of much debate since the days when I still believed.

However, the questions regarding the plagues specifically are from the Bible. Why is it inappropriate to answer a question based upon Scripture with other Scripture? Not sure what the problem here is.

Heartc didn't care about the plagues. He asked why God would "harden Pharoah's heart", making it impossible for him to accept God himself. And that is a question that has not been answered.

Circumstancial evidence, yes. Direct, smoking gun evidence, no.
If you want to delve into that subject, we can.

Absolutely. I really want to know. Unfortunately, circumstacial evidence can go either way. It's always subject to interpretation. Still, I'd like to see it.

Herein lies the problem with that arguement: Science cannot explain what was before the big bang. It cant explain where the matter came from to have a big bang. It cant explain why - against unfathomable odds, single cell life came into being. It can't explain why, again challenging unfathomable odds, you and I can sit here as human being's on a world that works for us, able to communicate, able to appreciate the majesty of the mountains or hear the babbling of a stream. Science just can't come up with a full construct of how everything simply WORKS. The odds against it all coming together "as it is" is beyond the human mind to wrap around. Yet here we are. THAT defies logic.[/quote]
No, science can't explain what happened before, nor can it ever give answers to the "why" questions. But that doesn't mean that the answers faith gives are the correct ones. The Deists believed that God set the wheels in motion and the natural laws we observe are the result of that. They predated Darwin but almost certainly would have accepted him. That's why in their time what we call "Science" was termed by them "Natural Philosophy". Faith and Religion can give answers, or attempt to, but can never prove whether those answers are correct or not. What came before the Big Bang? I don't know, and I suspect you don't either. "Suspect", because I could be wrong.

So I look at an answer that makes more sense.

So do we all.

The "chances" that there is an intelligent mind behind it all, that designed it and all the wonderful, cool interconnects - beyond what we can take in all at once (but we continue to learn and be astounded) is a lot more likely.

Why? Why is it more likely. It's just as likely that it just happened. There is no evidence that the order we see was put there for a reason, and an equal chance that it just is. We try to order things in our minds, and we look for reasons. The mistake that faith always makes is to try to find reasons for things which may or may not have any. This is why I faulted your logic. We may find order in things because we need to. Or the order may have been put there by a higher power. Or the order may have just happened. With no way of knowing it is bad reasoning to assume that it "must" be one thing or the other.

The way the universe works is just too wondrous - too amazing - for it to have happened randomly. Everywhere you look you can see the design behind it. To look at what science knows about the universe, about the human brain, about atomic particles or gravity or thousands of other things and deny a design boggles the mind.

Possibly because the mind is easily boggled. I only see what is, not how it got that way. I also see the possibility that we have a need to see more than is actually there.

E=MC2 is a bit much for random chance, don't you think?

Not at all. Not knowing for sure, I don't think one way or the other.

However - yes - for the sake of the discussion I "assumed" I am right, because the question is predicated on me being right about the existence of the Almighty.

Fair point, because anytime we believe in something of this nature we have to believe we're right because so much is at stake if we're not. My objection to that concept is that when we argue from the point that we're right we leave no possibility that we might be wrong. I've been wrong far too many times to think that way.

[Morts]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Herein lies the problem with that arguement: Science cannot explain what was before the big bang. It cant explain where the matter came from to have a big bang. It cant explain why - against unfathomable odds, single cell life came into being. It can't explain why, again challenging unfathomable odds, you and I can sit here as human being's on a world that works for us, able to communicate, able to appreciate the majesty of the mountains or hear the babbling of a stream. Science just can't come up with a full construct of how everything simply WORKS. The odds against it all coming together "as it is" is beyond the human mind to wrap around. Yet here we are. THAT defies logic.

Things have to turn out one way or the other, the process that resulted in us, has likely happened billions of times on other planets, and resulted in nothing.
And science cant explain everything, thats true, that is what makes it exciting, you can actually find out new things about nature, animals, the universe, whatever, whereas with the bible its laid out as is, and cant be subject to change.

[CaptainHaplo]

Steve,

Thank you for keeping this discussion on track with reason. I agree - we are all often wrong an awful lot.

I'll do the best to present my thoughts regarding the two questions that it seems are still outstanding - the issue of AIDS being more than a random happenstance, and the issue of why God would harden Pharoah's heart.

Let me deal with the biblical issue first. Since we are dealing with what is biblical history, as you said - there is no other proof they really happened. Yet if we accept the biblical version - even for discussion - then we should look at the same source for the answer. As I mentioned, chapter 4 shows that Pharoah was advised he would lose his firstborn son if he failed to let the Israelites go. When he choose 6 times to refuse, the die was cast. Basing the answer on just what the Bible states, it is clear that the repercussions were already set up ahead of time. Once the refusals kicked in - God acted to insure that the outcome was what He had promised.

To let Pharoah refuse and "get away" with it, would make God out a liar. The last plague is the fulfillment of the repercussions stated earlier. The 9th plague is important in that earlier God stated He would show His glory - by darkening the sun He was showing the power over the god of Pharoah - who was ra, the god of the sun.

God hardened Pharoah's heart for the final plagues to prove His supremacy and to fulfill the promise of Pharoah losing his firstborn if he refused the Will of God.

Now, as for the AIDS question. Homosexuality has been around for more than just a few decades. AIDS was first identified in the 1940's (first US case in 1969). History of various cultures shows us that homosexuality has been known in humanity for at least a few thousand years. HIV is a human version of SIV - monkey AIDS basically. The thing is, that virus has been around for millenia - an estimated 32000 years if you believe researchers at Tulane university.

http://tulane.edu/news/releases/pr_09162010.cfm

Allow me to quote one very important note:

The study also raises a question about the origin of HIV. If humans have been exposed to SIV-infected monkeys for thousands of years, why did the HIV epidemic only begin in the 20th century?
"Something happened in the 20th century to change this relatively benign monkey virus into something that was much more potent and could start the epidemic. We don't know what that flashpoint was, but there had to be one," Marx says.

This is in reference to the fact that mankind has been eating SIV infected monkeys for generations - and out of the blue "something" causes this virus to mutate.

Yet if you read the article, you find out something else. SIV is primarily NON-LETHAL to its host. HIV is primarily LETHAL to its host. Not only did this virus jump across species - it also changed how deadly it is. All in one fell swoop, with no identifiable reason. Then take into account how resistent this virus has proven to be against modern medicine.

Heck, some groups even swear that HIV was an engineered virus because of its unique traits. The most stubborn close comparison is cancer, though that has afflicted mankind for thousands of years and is a lot more understood and treatable (as well as curable in some cases) than HIV. Yet cancer is still more responsive overall to treatment - even though those cells have had longer to adapt.

Next look at where the HIV epidemic took root. The most affected groups were homosexuals and drug users. Their lifestyle (an expressed affront to God) exposed them to the dangers of HIV at much higher rates than those who did not commit such acts. Thus those communities were substantially more affected. This is simply an outcome that falls into line with the Romans passage I mentioned earlier.

It should be noted that HIV has progressed more and more into the heterosexual community. The fact that this spread matches the timeline in which society has become more generally accepting of homosexuality and drug usage is a rather interesting sidenote, is it not? Coincidence?

One could say that because homosexuality opens up greater health risks, its only natural that that community would be more affected. But then health sciences and studies of human sexuality in regards to health were probably not a really high priority project when Romans was written (about 50-60 AD, or 2000+ years ago), so how would the writer or writers be able to make a statement that says in essence that the homosexual community would "reap what they sow"? Coincidence again?

Like I said - circumstancial evidence - no smoking gun. However, the facts do match up rather well to the construct.

[Gerald]

Very diverse topic this....

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

When he choose 6 times to refuse, the die was cast. Basing the answer on just what the Bible states, it is clear that the repercussions were already set up ahead of time. Once the refusals kicked in - God acted to insure that the outcome was what He had promised.

I think that brings us back to heartc's original complaint. Pharoah didn't refuse. It says that God "hardened Pharoah's heart", which implies that Pharoah had no say in the matter. God forced Pharoah to take the path of evil, which would seem to make God out to be manipulative and petty. I realize that if we are to accept the story as true we have to come to the conclusion that God has motives we can't begin to understand, but that only increases the importance of the question. Within the context it raises concerns, and outside the context it supports the challenge that the story was created by the author to illustrate his point, and is therefore not real.

This is in reference to the fact that mankind has been eating SIV infected monkeys for generations - and out of the blue "something" causes this virus to mutate.

I've heard it suggested that someone may have decided to do something with the monkeys other than eating them. As for mutating "out of the blue", it's my understanding that viruses mutate quite often. Usually the mutations are benign, but once in a great while it turns out otherwise. We create medications to fight disease, and sometimes the disease mutates so the old meds don't work anymore.

Like I said - circumstancial evidence - no smoking gun. However, the facts do match up rather well to the construct.

Yes they do, but the construct itself hinges once again upon accepting the existence of God. Everything you say could be true, but only if studied within that pre-determined context. And a pre-determined context is, to me, the bane of reason and learning.

[heartc]

Thank you for your response, CaptainHaplo. Though I will submit that it is not me laying logical traps, but rather you falling for logical fallacies. And to clarify: In one of your later responses you said to SailorSteve that for the sake of argument I would assume that the God of the Bible is real. That is not quite so, or this discussion would be pointless.

It is rather like that: "You" (the believer / proponent of that) are telling me that it is so. You are making the positive claim. I'm in the neutral position initially. I look out the window, or up into the sky, and I don't see him. That doesn't prove anything either way, of course. So, I look at why you are making the claim, and one of the things you (the proponent) does is pointing to a book compiled of a number of 2000+ year old scripts from the Middle East. You also tell me that this God you are referring to is not only real, but he is a perfect and benevolent being with perfect love, perfect justice, that we all should strive for him, and indeed, must strive for him or at the end of our days, we will not only die, but after that end up in a terrible place for all eternity, because he has a certain ruleset and if you didn't obey it you are doomed. These are all bold claims and since when I look out the window I see nothing indicating this specific figure with these specific properties, I then decide to take a look at the book you are referring to and are basing your claims on.

What you then did for the most part of your response, was that whenever I pointed out logical inconsistencies, or evidence for actions that are not only not lovely, and not just, but appalling in the highest degree to any sentient moral and emphatic being, your response was that there is mistake on my part to approach your claims with logic, since the figure, by its nature, cannot be understood by logic. There are a number of severe problems with that response though:

- You yourself are applying attributes to the figure like love and justice. These are concepts that are known and knowable to man. So when man looks at the book and points out the many instances therein that are in gross violations of these concepts - like ordering the slaughter of baby childs and raping of women - you say that these are not violations of the concepts of love and justice, but instead God's concept of love and justice is beyond human comprehension. So, what you are basicly doing there is completely remove any meaning from the words love and justice. When a sign of love and / or justice can at the same time mean giving food to someone and ordering the raping of women or slaughter of children, then "love" and / or "justice" do not have any consistent properties by which they could be described, thus these words become completely meaningless.
But, tracking our steps back to the initial position, remember that it was *you* (the proponent) who decribed your God to have these properties / characteristics. So, you either stand by the terms love and justice as concepts where certain outcomes must and must not follow, or you didn't describe your God AT ALL. Which begs the question of: If you didn't describe him at all, what are you talking about in the first place? If your God cannot be subject to logic, then there is no possible way for man to talk about him and the discussion must end instantly, or actually, cannot even begin.
If he is not subject to logic, we could as well discuss "Red triangles in my head above the sand, but brighter, together with the pink unicorn, are slow, but fast, and will judge you at the end of days." Which also begs the question, why do you apply logic to EVERYTHING else in your life, but when it comes to your GOD, you totally surrender logic. Which then begs the question, why would God, *now* assuming that he exists, present himself in such a way as to be not understandable by logic, which must lead to many humans, who are surviving in their world by applying logic everyday, to not be able to believe in him and thus be lost and damned in eternal hellfire ultimately? Is that, too, a question that is not applicable? Do you need to disable your brain, that God gave you, and become "retarded" to be saved? This is not meant as an offense, but instead it is exactly what must follow if God is exempt from logical inquiery.

- Your response is a severe case of circular reasoning, or rather, a non sequitur. You are saying: "There is a God, he has a book, which is either his divine word and / or the records of him revealing himself to man, and he has properties X, Y and Z, and you should worship him because he is real". When I say: "Actions x, y and z described in his book are in contradiction to properties X, Y and Z, so who is he again (what are his properties again), so whom should I worship and why?" You say: "Don't ask questions, silly, just do it. You not understanding him with your "human" logic is proof that he is real, and God." Taken further, you could as well say: "You not seeing him is proof that he exists." Do you apply that reasoning to anything else in your life? Probably not, because you recognize it as a logical fallacy. Except when it comes to your God. Because he is beyond logic. But so is the Pink Unicorn. Why do you not worship it? Because it doesn't have a book? Suppose it had one, would you worship it? Why do you worship the desert God of an Iron Age Middle Eastern tribal nation of goat herders, who - if the Bible is historically correct - commited gross attrocities on neighbouring tribes, justifying them by reference to him, instead of Vishnu or Zeus? Are you worshipping him BECAUSE he is beyond logic, or inspite of it? Would you worship Vishnu rather than the desert God if you were born in India, or Zeus if you were born in ancient Greece? What makes you assume you got "the right deity", when this deity cannot even be understood by logic??? And remember, "logic" is not just a word you can discard, it is the very means of reasoning. Without it, I would continue with saying that alkdhjbzlfkhg----------34jwghliw4zhi4lkdfsgnhgia8.

- There's another thing about this "Because he is God, us humans cannot understand his ways". There is an interesting story in the Bible in the book of Job. It exactly deals with "Making NO sense whatsoever for YOU, silly!"
From Jobs perspective, all of a sudden - out of the blue - so to say, he gets hit with a lot of very very bad things. His sons and daughters dieing, he losing all his wealth, getting severely ill, his body degenerating grossly. He doesn't understand it, because he was the most upright and God fearing man under the sun, not according to his own views, but according to God.
Yet he gets smashed. Some friends come along to talk to him. They suspect that maybe he wasn't all that good after all, and he should repent, then all will be good again. But Job insists that he was indeed perfect unto the Lord, but God smashed him anyway, but also says that's OK after all, because God is great and who knows his ways. Later, when God speaks out of the thunderstorm, he indeed confirms that Job's friends are talking out of their behind with their blame game and Job was indeed speaking rightly (so, he smashed him for no earthly discernible reason). Then he restores everything Job had before, and then some, including a new family (I wonder if Job was still a bit bothered though that God stopped at the restoring thing when it would have meant to resurrect his dead former children. Or maybe you didn't care back then and children were interchangable, cultural background and all that...).

What is quite kind of God about this story is that he lets YOU, the reader (not Job, mind you! He had to just suck it up), look behind the scenes. What infact transpired in HIS realm to cause so much grief to Job. God gives the reader THE REASON for it. Let's see what it was:

Turns out that one day, "the Sons of God" (whoever that is, theologians frequently cope out with calling them "heavenly beings" - though the Sons of God at one point in the OT also came down to earth and had sex with humans, which resulted in the tribe of giants, so whatever) walked up to God, and Satan "was also among them." The Lord asks him "Where do you come from?" Satan tells him he just returned from a roundtrip on the earth. Then the Lord asked him "Did you see my servant Job? He's the most upright of them all." If this is not a friendly conversation, and we must assume it can't be, then it means God is boasting unto Satan. And indeed, Satan responds with "Yeah, big deal. You think he is so upright unto you for nothing? You made him most rich and gave him a happy life. Take that away from him and see how it works out for you!" And the bet is on. God does exactly that. Well, actually, not he himself. He let's Satan actually do the dirty deed. But first, he forbids him to touch Job's body. So, Satan goes ahead and destroys Jobs wealth and kills his children. But Job's response to that is not that he is falling off from God, but instead he says "The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away. Praise the name of the Lord!". And did not sin and did not rebel against God.
Then, some other day, again the Sons of God, with Satan among them, walk up to the Lord. Same story with the roundtrip. Then God asks: "Did you see my servant Job? He is the most... etc. and he still keeps to his piety, yet you brought me to ruin him for no reason / on no basis."
Satan says "Ha! Taking away his wealth and children wasn't enough. Touch his body and he will denounce you!" So God agrees to Satans proposal of raising the stakes in that little game and once more gives Job into the hands of Satan, this time his health.
And God wins the second round, too, since Job doesn't turn away from God.

OK. So what was happening here? God was playing what amounts to a perverted betting game with Satan, which entailed unimaginable suffering and grief to a human being on earth. THIS is all there is to it. Why would he do that? Is he doing it because he is insecure himself? If he knows the future, and in many parts of his book he says he does, he must have known that Job will not fall away from him. So if this can't be the reason, he must be doing it to spite Satan. The Satan that he himself created and that he is going to destroy at some point after the end of the world. What is the point of spiting him, especially if it entails severe human suffering? Does that mean God is bored sometimes so that he takes delight in spiting Satan from time to time, and the price for that is human suffering? Or does God indeed NOT know the future, which would severly contradict other stories in the Bible, albeit this story here would make a lot more sense if he didn't and if he isn't omniscient, and which would indeed be indicated by the initial question of "Where do you come from (Satan)?" If he doesn't know the future, he indeed did take the bet out with Satan because he was curious himself. Either way, if God is playing games with Satan that entail severe human suffering, either out of curiousity or out of spite, in a universe that HE created, where the ultimate price the human subject in the petridish might even pay when he fails the test is eternal hellfire, what does that make God? What the hell is this?

Now, think about it. What makes more sense: Is that the description of a real God, of the creator of the universe, who came up with things like e=mc^2 (actually, Einstein "came up" with it. I wonder if it turns out to be false, then you'll never hear a believer say that again...), a God of love and justice, as Christians would have you believe, a benevolent being, your personal friend, or is it rather that what we have here is a primitive story made up by simple men to explain suffering when it doesn't make sense to them, especially when they feel they did nothing wrong towards their God, of men who also had the luxury of not having to bring all of this to terms with hundreds of different other stories, even some about a man who claimed he was God himself, or his son, or both (as did many other men) and acted quite differently to the ravaging, petty, jealous, cruel and genocidal God of Old, and which would some thousand years later be compiled into a single book and still make any sense and be coherent. But this is what "Christianity" is trying to sell you. They are telling you that the reason your child / mother / husband whoever died tragically in an accident was because the invisible man in the sky is playing betting games about your soul with the devil! Oh, and btw. he also made the universe and intelligently designed DNA and what not, when he was not just busy playing poker. Give me a break, man.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

First question - How do you know he didn't answer the prayer of a starving child in Africa? Do you know what the child prayed for? Perhaps not to be hungry anymore? So the Lord, in his mercy - chose to call the child Home where he or she would never suffer hunger again. A prayer answered - just not in the way you thought "it should be". As for how God answers prayer - it can be either through natural or supernatural means.

If I were to answer as an atheist, I would have to say that this is response is hideously cynical and inhuman. But since you are arguing from a certain proposition and because I made the same kind of mental acrobatics when I was a Christian, I know that it is not meant cynical at all. But it is intellectually dishonest. Actually, it's absurd and another logical fallacy. Here's why: If God would have thrown something like mana from heaven, you would have said: "See, this is proof of the Lord!" And when NOTHING
AT ALL happens and the child just DIES from HUNGER, you say "See, this is proof of the Lord! He mercifully let the child die".

Wow. You see any problem with that? Also, should we try and stop fighting hunger via charity, since God mercifully takes care of that for us by letting the people die?

However - your questions also make assumptions that are designed to "load" the question. How many miracles are listed in the Bible? How many people lived during those times - compared to today? Who is to say that the Lord is not performing miracles every day (like curing "incurable" cancer") just as many as before? With the population what it is - it simply doesn't "register" on your local news.....

Cancer just disappearing is an observed medical phenomena that is not yet explained. Like when we didn't understand why the sun wasn't falling from the sky. Maybe, as we did with other things, we should go ahead and continue investigating phenomenas such as this by scientific means, so that maybe some day, we will be able to cure cancer, like we were able with many other diseases, instead of ascribing it to the Desert God because we do not currently understand it. And rest assured, if science will
ever find a cure for cancer, it will be Christians like you who will say "God gave the scientists the cure for cancer!", while today you say "It's a miracle!". You contributed nothing. And neither did the Desert God. Actually, you might have been in the way of science by probably proposing to teach the "Controversy" at centers of education, i.e. Science vs Intelligent Design, Science vs. the Magic Spells of the Desert God.

As for why certain miracles don't happen - again your asking for an explanation of the mind of the Almighty.

Oh yeah, my fault, sorry. Let's just stop talking at all then. About anything. If that makes more sense.

Still, if you choose to believe the Biblical history - there were many times when the Lord provided only to have people turn from Him. Now if you had experienced the same thing over and over - why would YOU continue to provide knowing that it will not bring the people closer to you? Why would you give knowing it would be unappreciated and taken for granted in a short time? Most people wouldn't. Your saying that you expect God to do so - even as you question who and what God is.....How can you have an expectation of something you clearly say you don't understand?

So, God is sulking?? Here we have the inefficient God again. Not knowing how to properly show the humans that he is the creator of all things, trying out different means and then abandoning them again when they didn't work for those pesky humans. At some point, he must have been quite convinced that it'll work, since it is what Jesus used to establish his authority for
claiming to be God. He also said that his followers will be able to do wonderous things in his name, like drink deadly poison and live, heal the sick etc.
Also, there is a number of things God, the creator of the Universe, could have done to ensure that people in 2000 years wouldn't just have to rely on a 2000 year old compiled and contradictionary book that describes fancy magic tricks by an obscure figure in the middle east, magic tricks you will find in ANY number of other religions, like walking on water, curing the sick. Here might be some suggestions:

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStamp...35/zOfjkl-3SNE

Its good because it fits with His will. The problem here is your trying to apply your limited perspective and ethical view to something much bigger than you. You see the trees, but not the forest.

Emphasis added to specific portions.

Pharoah was given numerous opportunities to let the Israelites go. In Exodus 4, the Lord instructs Abraham to tell Pharoah what the ultimate cost of his rebellion will be if he does not let them leave. This is before any of the plagues. 6 times in Exodus did Pharoah harden his own heart and refuse - even given supernatural signs and wonders - that he was outmatched on every level. He was warned - and he chose multiple times to disobey. The Lord is not a liar - His judgement upon Egypt was as He said it would be. The Lord does not threaten - He promises. Once the line was crossed then the full gamut of His righteous anger was kindled and would be seen.

No no no. You know better than that, when you are a pastor. Let's keep honest here, shall we. There was no imaginary line in the story crossed by the Pharao. You just made that up. I grant you that not after every single plague it said "The Lord hardened his heart". It sometimes says instead "His heart was hardened", which can very well mean, and probably does mean, by the Lord, if the Lord did it after the plague before or the plague thereafter. At one point it also said "The Pharao hardened his heart" -
which however does not exclude God's manipulation, especially if it was established in the very BEGINNING of the story, when God tells Moses of his PLAN, that "I (the Lord) will harden his heart, so that he will not let you go." This is pretty damn clear man. There is no imaginary line anywhere in the story that if Pharao had not crossed it, God had not "hardened his heart". You made it up to get something like reasoning into the story, to make it look like God first gave a shot across the bow, while in the
real story the Pharao and the Egyptians are nothing but a tool to God to demonstrate his power and bring exactly ten plagues upon them and the ten plague was exactly planned to be the murder of every single firstborn in all of Egypt, human and animal.

This, my friend, is a story and a picture of God primitive men would come up with, in a time where there was still at contest going on among different desert tribes and people, about who owns the land and on what authority, about MY God is bigger than YOUR God. And because that is so, you need to do mental acrobatics and invent imaginary lines that were crossed by the Pharao to make God look more humanistic in nature. The God of love and Einstein and all that. Which would fail even if there had been an imaginary line: Why the hell kill the firstborn, including baby childs, of EVERYBODY?
Btw, do you know what your Bible says about those who "change the word of God"? Repent!

In the OT this was a demand of law upon the government. Such activity threatened the bloodline of Christ. While the individuals were free to reject salvation to come - their actions could not be allowed to toss it for everyone. Thus the law. In the NT, read Romans 1:26, 27 - since the Christ has come, the Lord allows nature to take its course and afflict the sinners with the natural outcome.

And people wonder today why AIDS (which initiall primarily afflicted gays and drug users - another group that defiles the body) has proven so hard to eradicate....

Rebellious teenagers: Context is important. Read Deuteronomy 21 - starting with verse 10. It tells a man the cost of what he can endure and must do in some cases should he choose to take a wife as spoil from a victory in battle. It lays out the costs long term. It is a warning and advisement. It is also important to realize that nowhere does it is say "teenager". Moses - who is credited with writing the Book, died at 120yrs of age. A "son" often lived with the family for most of their life - well into adult years of 40 or more. This is dealing with the rebellion of an adult son who continues to violate the Law. It is a matter of sooner or later with such a person. If the parents don't do it first, the Law will end up doing it later, after others have suffered the consequences of the rebel's insubordination.

OK, this is just too absurd to warrant much further comment, especially in light of all I wrote above. But since I can't hold me back:

- Why is the salvation of man by an all powerfull God dependent on who has sex with whom, so that at some point some special person can be born, who is actually God incarnate, who will take all the sin of the world upon him while being totally innocent himself, thus being the only proper (and human) sacrifice that God himself can accept (God is quite bloodthirsty even in the NT, isn't he?) so that he can forgive all the humans, which were all born with original guilt for something 2 people did at
the beginning of the world. And btw, he also designed DNA sometime before all that. Before he intelligently designed the humans to fall for sin. Who btw also have some parts in and on their body that would indicate animal ancestors, and DNA itself, just to confuse those humans into the false religion of "Evolution", I guess, so that less be saved. Hello?
Or, short version: God could only come into the world if some gay people died first. I see.

- Context is not important when someone proposes the death penalty for teenagers being stubborn. Also, the text doesn't speak of ANY age limitations. Are you making things up again? And even if it did, from which age on do you propose does stubborness warrant the death penalty?

- AIDS. Aside from what has already been pointed out to you, that AIDS does not just befall evil gays and drug users, I wouldn't try to build a case for the Desert God on that one if I were you. Totally aside from it showing another case of gross cruelty, I wonder what people like you will say when at one point in the future we might find a cure for it. It hasn't been around that long, and there were cures found for sicknesses that were around much longer. Have we then won against the Desert God, by breaking another tool of his wrath? Or did he then mercifully decide at that point that now, after millions of death, including thousands of children in Africa who were neither gay nor drug users, we may find the cure? Or should we stop looking for it so that your Desert God can go on with punishing those whicked people? I think I now understand why the Pope is against the use
of condoms.

Good? Depends on the perspective. From the Lord's - obviously yes. Just? Well, the Israelites had been slaves in Egypt for how long? Killed or sold as cattle? A few deaths in recompense are more than called for in the judicial view of the time - and the one espoused by God.

Yes, it always depends on the perspective. Since I do not want to be the one to summon Godwin's Law, I leave you to decide what would be written here now if I did.
And yes, I guess a few deaths of 2 month olds etc. are more than called for. Especially if you are an all powerfull being that could have just prevented the Israelites from becoming slaves in the first place, or do any number of things INSTEAD OF KILLING, among others, baby childs. Jesus Christ, really. Also, "a few deaths" - I will leave the mathematics to you to figure out the number when it says "EVERY FIRSTBORN IN ALL OF EGYPT". And why the animals, too? Because the question of guilt didn't even matter. It was a power demonstration of a blood-thirsty and genocidal God which is in line with other actions he did either himself or ordered his people to do.



So there. This is what I can discern just from the book you told me is of the one who created the universe. We don't even have to talk about absurd claims of intelligent design or historical accuracy of the Bible, because both these things would just fly into your face, and might neither prove nor disprove the Desert God anyway, because that would depend on how literal the proponent's Christian flavor takes the Bible.







Sorry for the long post. On the upside, I guess this is all I have to say about that.

Also, these videos pretty well drive home my points, so I want to link them here:

Morality:

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStamp...12/zXO26pObTZA

And on a more funny note:

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStamp...33/Pt66kbYmXXk

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStamp...58/QecUUnLNSiY

Intelligent Design:

http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStamp...32/4_G9awnDCmg


http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStamp...39/wKtuk0ZpnbY

[MH]

@ALL..
I must say its real fun and interesting to read your posts when you don't get nasty.