"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. "?

[Tiberius]

I get your point. There's a lot I struggle with some elements of the bible.
Was it culture? Was it translation? Was it priestly redaction? Or are we
missing something important?

Lot would have offended his uncle in being prepared to marry a Canaanite
and live in Sodom. The two things Abraham did not do. Yet is says that
God had mercy upon Lot, just as he did upon the wickedness of David, a
man God said was "after my own heart."

Like I said, the Bible is not a very plausible book.

As an aside. Are you offended with homosexual culture today? Do you
notice how the term "tolerance" for "gays" is morphing into "celebration"?
At what point will you lose your job, your social media presence etc by
saying you merely "tolerate gays." ? We have a celebrity sportsman who
was pilloried and lost his career for lumping "gays" in with adulterers,
divorcees etc as being in danger of God's judgment on Facebook.
The "gays" of Sodom did not appreciate that Lot said they were wicked. I
can see that happening in our cultural Marxist, Political Correct and Woke
culture.

My brother is gay, and I love him dearly. I am not offended by gay people in any way. Saying I tolerate gay people makes about as much sense as saying I tolerate left handed people. And the crime of the people of Sodom was that they were disrespectful to their guests. The Bible makes this very clear in Ezekiel 16:49-50:

16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
16:50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
​

And the celebration thing is about the struggles they have faced and overcome to be treated the same way as straight people.

 

[PruePhillip]

Like I said, the Bible is not a very plausible book.



My brother is gay, and I love him dearly. I am not offended by gay people in any way. Saying I tolerate gay people makes about as much sense as saying I tolerate left handed people. And the crime of the people of Sodom was that they were disrespectful to their guests. The Bible makes this very clear in Ezekiel 16:49-50:

16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
16:50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
​

And the celebration thing is about the struggles they have faced and overcome to be treated the same way as straight people.

Yes, the abominations included homosexuality. Ezekiel was either writing from God's inspiration
or he was writing from Genesis. Take your pick.
I have a gay brother also. I also have a divorced brother, one who has been to prison many
times. Sure I love them - but that's dodging the issue of morality.
We can't say that divorce, homosexuality, gambling, pornography is wrong now. Soon drugs won't
be wrong either, legalized because we have given up fighting them - we will hear the stories of people
incarcerated for smoking a joint and what they went through for their rights. Even child porn laws are
being watered down because child porn is doubling every year.
This maxim has also been turned on its head. "Right is right whether people live it or not, wrong is wrong
even if everyone does it."

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, the abominations included homosexuality.

Sorry, where does it say that?

Ezekiel was either writing from God's inspiration
or he was writing from Genesis. Take your pick.
I have a gay brother also. I also have a divorced brother, one who has been to prison many
times. Sure I love them - but that's dodging the issue of morality.
We can't say that divorce, homosexuality, gambling, pornography is wrong now. Soon drugs won't
be wrong either, legalized because we have given up fighting them - we will hear the stories of people
incarcerated for smoking a joint and what they went through for their rights. Even child porn laws are
being watered down because child porn is doubling every year.
This maxim has also been turned on its head. "Right is right whether people live it or not, wrong is wrong
even if everyone does it."

Are you actually trying to argue that being gay is wrong when we weren't discussing that at all?

And I don't believe that child porn laws are becoming weaker. Care to show a case of this?

 

[PruePhillip]

Sorry, where does it say that?



Are you actually trying to argue that being gay is wrong when we weren't discussing that at all?

And I don't believe that child porn laws are becoming weaker. Care to show a case of this?

There was a category of "sins" that our great grandparents, and most who came before
them spoke of. This included adultery, divorce, pornography, drunkenness, smoking,
gambling, homosexuality, drugs, gluttony, pride, living in sin and so on. Bit by bit each
of these has gone from sin to celebration.
Georgian professor wrote a paper mid 1990's stating that feminism was taboo in 1900
and gays were taboo in 1950. He suggested child porn or pedophilia (can't remember
which, sorry) would be acceptable one day. Georgian state govt deduced his salary
from his university's funding.
Within ten years Georgia was one of three states that decriminalized the presence of
child porn on personal computers (a technicality maybe because of having to prove
someone accessed this porn.)
In Australia it was stated that if Aust's entire police force was dedicated to fighting it,
there would still be no way our country would stop child porn. It doubled in a single
year. I suspect child porn will go the way of narcotics - people will just give up
pursuing it.

 

[Willamena]

"Believing in God in itself doesn't make a person irrational. Being irrational makes a person irrational."

It is a "winner" sentence( written by our friend @HonestJoe in his post #104 ) . I appreciate it.
Does one agree with the sentence colored in magenta above?
If not, why not, please?

Regards

I agree with magenta. It's a good colour.

On a serious note, if the image of 'god' that one acquires is comprehensive, there's no reason not to believe in it.

 

[Tiberius]

There was a category of "sins" that our great grandparents, and most who came before
them spoke of. This included adultery, divorce, pornography, drunkenness, smoking,
gambling, homosexuality, drugs, gluttony, pride, living in sin and so on. Bit by bit each
of these has gone from sin to celebration.
Georgian professor wrote a paper mid 1990's stating that feminism was taboo in 1900
and gays were taboo in 1950. He suggested child porn or pedophilia (can't remember
which, sorry) would be acceptable one day. Georgian state govt deduced his salary
from his university's funding.
Within ten years Georgia was one of three states that decriminalized the presence of
child porn on personal computers (a technicality maybe because of having to prove
someone accessed this porn.)
In Australia it was stated that if Aust's entire police force was dedicated to fighting it,
there would still be no way our country would stop child porn. It doubled in a single
year. I suspect child porn will go the way of narcotics - people will just give up
pursuing it.

And perhaps one day murder will likewise be decriminalised, and theft, and rape, and kidnapping...

Honestly, do you see how weak this argument is?

You only tried to answer one of the questions I asked, and you didn't answer it very well. And you are wrong too. It is NOT legal to have child porn in Georgia. Georgia Child Pornography Laws - FindLaw

 

[PruePhillip]

And perhaps one day murder will likewise be decriminalised, and theft, and rape, and kidnapping...

Honestly, do you see how weak this argument is?

You only tried to answer one of the questions I asked, and you didn't answer it very well. And you are wrong too. It is NOT legal to have child porn in Georgia. Georgia Child Pornography Laws - FindLaw

No, not all things will go that way.
I think abortion will forever be controversial - but the goalposts will move the debate
to late term and "partial birth abortion" (where a live baby is pulled more than half
way out and killed.) Most of these issues are slippery slope ones - I don't know anyone
who was "gay marriage" before 2000 - that was just being "extreme." Likewise allowing
euthanasia for anyone was "extreme" during the debate, but now being "liberalized."
I read one school had 80 children with "gender dysphoria" issues - up from the one
tenth of one percent doctors and activists spoke about five years ago.
But with murder the penalties have gone from capital punishment to "life" to 5 years or
less in many cases.
Rape and sexual molestation have gone to the other way due to feminism (witness the Harvey
case) but the problem just pops out in some other way.
I didn't say child porn is legal in Georgia - I said the same state legislature which sought
to punish a professor for his assessment became an early adopter of watering down the
porn laws. And child sex pops out other ways - ie the sexualization of kids, ready porn for
kids, lowering of ages of actresses etc..

 

[Tiberius]

No, not all things will go that way.
I think abortion will forever be controversial - but the goalposts will move the debate
to late term and "partial birth abortion" (where a live baby is pulled more than half
way out and killed.)

Yeah, you do realise that when that happens, it's because the baby can't survive outside the womb, or the mother's life is in danger, right? No one EVER has an abortion late in the pregnancy because they just don't want to be a parent.

Most of these issues are slippery slope ones - I don't know anyone
who was "gay marriage" before 2000 - that was just being "extreme." Likewise allowing
euthanasia for anyone was "extreme" during the debate, but now being "liberalized."
I read one school had 80 children with "gender dysphoria" issues - up from the one
tenth of one percent doctors and activists spoke about five years ago.

Maybe because people aren't the jerks they are back then and are more tolerant of people being themselves?

Did you stop to think that maybe the reason there were fewer openly trans and gay people back then wasn't because there were fewer gay and trans people, but because everyone discriminated against gay and trans people?

But with murder the penalties have gone from capital punishment to "life" to 5 years or
less in many cases.

And your source for this claim?

Rape and sexual molestation have gone to the other way due to feminism (witness the Harvey
case) but the problem just pops out in some other way.

And you think this helps your case?

I didn't say child porn is legal in Georgia - I said the same state legislature which sought
to punish a professor for his assessment became an early adopter of watering down the
porn laws.

Got a source for this? Please make it a source that shows that Georgia's laws regarding child porn laws were weakened.

And child sex pops out other ways - ie the sexualization of kids, ready porn for
kids, lowering of ages of actresses etc..

Sexualisation of kids has increased recently? Like this ad from the late 70s/early 80s? Girls' Literature and Culture: Talk about Sexualised! Old Love's Baby Soft Advertisement

And ready porn for kids? Care to show me some of this porn being marketed for children?

And lowering the age of actresses? Are you serious? Do you think films should be banned from having characters that aren't adults? Are you calling for a boycott of the movie "Three Men and a Baby," and its sequel?

 

[PruePhillip]

Yeah, you do realise that when that happens, it's because the baby can't survive outside the womb, or the mother's life is in danger, right? No one EVER has an abortion late in the pregnancy because they just don't want to be a parent.
Maybe because people aren't the jerks they are back then and are more tolerant of people being themselves?
Did you stop to think that maybe the reason there were fewer openly trans and gay people back then wasn't because there were fewer gay and trans people, but because everyone discriminated against gay and trans people?
And your source for this claim?
And you think this helps your case?
Got a source for this? Please make it a source that shows that Georgia's laws regarding child porn laws were weakened.
Sexualisation of kids has increased recently? Like this ad from the late 70s/early 80s? Girls' Literature and Culture: Talk about Sexualised! Old Love's Baby Soft Advertisement
And ready porn for kids? Care to show me some of this porn being marketed for children?
And lowering the age of actresses? Are you serious? Do you think films should be banned from having characters that aren't adults? Are you calling for a boycott of the movie "Three Men and a Baby," and its sequel?

In Victoria, Australia legislation has been considered to water down the law which says that
euthanasia is for people with terminal illness who have less than six months to live. That was
the original deal - the goal posts would be set in concrete. Only "extremists" think euthanasia
will be abused. A few years later, same people now lobby to broaden definitions.
Gays in Tasmania lobbied to revoke the law which criminalized their activities. It wouldn't go
further than that - just decriminalization. It's not about promoting it in schools, or gay rights or
anything like that. Few years later...
Last Australian election gave a vote on gay marriage. Proponents said it wouldn't lead to
attacks on free speech or religion. Six months after the vote an archbishop and a footballer
are targeted for hate speech.
Gender dysphoria was about a rare medical situation that ought to involve everyone, even
speech codes and our schools. This would solve the "problem." Stating that you could just
declare yourself one of 72 genders on any given day was "extreme" until it wasn't.

The Georgian Professor issue was in a Time article pre-Internet. Have sought it from time
to time without success. The "weakening" was in the same law changed in New York - you
won't go to jail if you have child porn on a PC, only if you are caught viewing it.

 

[Tiberius]

In Victoria, Australia legislation has been considered to water down the law which says that
euthanasia is for people with terminal illness who have less than six months to live. That was
the original deal - the goal posts would be set in concrete. Only "extremists" think euthanasia
will be abused. A few years later, same people now lobby to broaden definitions.
Gays in Tasmania lobbied to revoke the law which criminalized their activities. It wouldn't go
further than that - just decriminalization. It's not about promoting it in schools, or gay rights or
anything like that. Few years later...
Last Australian election gave a vote on gay marriage. Proponents said it wouldn't lead to
attacks on free speech or religion. Six months after the vote an archbishop and a footballer
are targeted for hate speech.
Gender dysphoria was about a rare medical situation that ought to involve everyone, even
speech codes and our schools. This would solve the "problem." Stating that you could just
declare yourself one of 72 genders on any given day was "extreme" until it wasn't.

The Georgian Professor issue was in a Time article pre-Internet. Have sought it from time
to time without success. The "weakening" was in the same law changed in New York - you
won't go to jail if you have child porn on a PC, only if you are caught viewing it.

You know, you really need to start providing sources for your claims, okay?

I'mm just gonna keep asking you to provide them until you do. And don't give me that pre-internet nonsense.

 

[night912]

The greatest Saints, Rishis, Sages and Wise men all advised Spirituality being most important in life
Knowing above fact, I would say: "Not believing in Spirituality, seems irrational"

But only those with wisdom knows that great titles does not make one wise.

I don't say, that one should believe or one should not believe
But, until Spirituality is proven wrong, it seems irrational to claim "I do not believe in Spirituality"

Your first part and second part contradict one another, making it irrational.

Next, you said.....

- But, until Spirituality is proven wrong, it seems irrational to claim "I do not believe in Spirituality"

Now rephrase that and you get....

- But, until the nonexistence of Spirituality is proven wrong, it seems irrational to claim "I do not believe in the nonexistence of Spirituality"

It's irrational to believe in anything and everything until it is proven wrong. According to your logic, you would have to believe that spirituality exist and not exist at the same time until one is proven wrong. And if it does not get proven wrong in your lifetime, that irrational reasoning until your life ends.

The Wise remain silent, until they "KNOW"

The unwise think that they are wise, and remains that way until they are proven and shown to be unwise.

 

[paarsurrey]

I agree with magenta. It's a good colour.

On a serious note, if the image of 'god' that one acquires is comprehensive, there's no reason not to believe in it.

Yes, the image is comprehensive, and G-d is only attributive . Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It's correct to say that science pushes further back. I am sure there's mechanisms which
explain the Big Bang (BB), and a mechanism which describes this mechanism. Turtles all the
way down so to speak.

But this doesn't work for any "god" OUTSIDE OF THE UNIVERSE.

Scientists say there cannot be anything "outside" of the universe. There cannot be time
before because time was created in the BB. Conceptually "before" the universe was born
is as silly as asking what is north of north. There was no time, energy, space, physical
laws, mathematics and logic.
N.o.t.h.i.n.g.
So asking the question "who made God" makes as much sense as asking what lies
outside of everything there is.

"So asking the question "who made God" makes as much sense as asking what lies outside of everything there is."

Since one of the attribute of G-d is who always existed/will exist, so the question is unreasonable and invalid. Right, please?

Regards

 

[PruePhillip]

"So asking the question "who made God" makes as much sense as asking what lies outside of everything there is."

Since one of the attribute of G-d is who always existed/will exist, so the question is unreasonable and invalid. Right, please?

Regards

Yes, it's unreasonable to ask "Who made God" because the whole realm of what
lies outside of our natural universe remains unreasonable to us.

 

[Tiberius]

"So asking the question "who made God" makes as much sense as asking what lies outside of everything there is."

Since one of the attribute of G-d is who always existed/will exist, so the question is unreasonable and invalid. Right, please?

Regards

Why can't we just define the universe in the same way and do away with God altogether?

 

[PruePhillip]

Why can't we just define the universe in the same way and do away with God altogether?

Because you are saying this:
"For no reason whatsoever, the universe, which didn't exist, created itself."

And when the universe "didn't exist" all the laws of physics, mathematics,
space, energy, time etc. did not exist either.

I hold that this is absurd - more absurd than the idea of God.

 

[Tiberius]

Because you are saying this:
"For no reason whatsoever, the universe, which didn't exist, created itself."

And when the universe "didn't exist" all the laws of physics, mathematics,
space, energy, time etc. did not exist either.

I hold that this is absurd - more absurd than the idea of God.

Please prove to me that the universe didn't exist.

 

[PruePhillip]

Please prove to me that the universe didn't exist.

Ha ha ha. How could I prove ANYTHING in this world. Even the "proofs" of science are open to dispute.
Maybe even mathematical proofs could be undone, who knows.

either

1 - the universe "began" which means it didn't exist prior to beginning
or
2 - the universe was always here, which doesn't answer the question of how it began.

there are many who love to ridicule people's faith and speak of the "God of the gaps"
but this beginning is something which most skeptics shy away from - the God of the
ultimate beginning, before there were even physical laws.

 

[izzy88]

Well belief itself is irrational.

However it isn't irrational to have a belief itself

Hmm...

 

[Mock Turtle]

Ha ha ha. How could I prove ANYTHING in this world. Even the "proofs" of science are open to dispute.
Maybe even mathematical proofs could be undone, who knows.

either

1 - the universe "began" which means it didn't exist prior to beginning
or
2 - the universe was always here, which doesn't answer the question of how it began.

there are many who love to ridicule people's faith and speak of the "God of the gaps"
but this beginning is something which most skeptics shy away from - the God of the
ultimate beginning, before there were even physical laws.

Well the obvious answer to this is - we don't know - so why invent some entity (call it God or whatever) and then attribute to such whatever one wants by whatever means? Especially when we might never have such an answer and the problems then created are of our own making.