Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[Skywalker]

And sex with prostitutes is just fine. Great. I got the message. Hallelujah Jesus! I am coming!

Jesus told the prostitute to go and sin more.

 

[Valjean]

It doesn't look right.

Sex in the proper context is not a sin. There are boundaries. Jesus said that all sexual immorality defiles us.

But what does Jesus know about it?

What constitutes a sin? Is a "sin" just a violation of some set of rules, or is there some purpose behind it?
Is right and wrong determined by consequence; by a harm - benefit analysis, or should we just shut up and do as we're told regardless of consequence?

 

[Skywalker]

But what does Jesus know about it?

What constitutes a sin? Is a "sin" just a violation of some set of rules, or is there some purpose behind it?
Is right and wrong determined by consequence; by a harm - benefit analysis, or should we just shut up and do as we're told regardless of consequence?

Sin is anything that separates people from God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus told the prostitute to go and sin more.

Are you sure?

 

[Skywalker]

Are you sure?

He said neither do I condemn thee nevertheless go and sin no more, in John 8:11.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He said neither do I condemn thee nevertheless go and sin no more, in John 8:11.

Nope, read it in context.

 

[Skywalker]

Nope, read it in context.

Jesus was convicting, not condemning the prostitute.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus was convicting, not condemning the prostitute.

Wrong again. Read the entire passage. Not just one verse. He never even hinted that prostitutes sin in that passage.

 

[Skywalker]

Wrong again. Read the entire passage. Not just one verse. He never even hinted that prostitutes sin in that passage.

He was talking about the woman caught in adultery. It's the same nonsense.

 

[Valjean]

Sin is anything that separates people from God.

And how are we to determine what separates us from God?

You're entire world-view is premised on a God, a book and unquestioning obedience to your interpretation of its dictates.
I'm questioning these premises, you will not. To you the entire mythology is axiomatic. You will not question your premises, and you fall back on them as a response to any challenge. You're deaf to any questions or criticism.

 

[Skywalker]

And how are we to determine what separates us from God?

You're entire world-view is premised on a God, a book and unquestioning obedience to your interpretation of its dictates.
I'm questioning these premises, you will not. To you the entire mythology is axiomatic. You will not question your premises, and you fall back on them as a response to any challenge. You're deaf to any questions or criticism.

God is not the author of confusion. Anything that doesn't respect oneself and others is not of God.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I stay with my opinion, that the principle of parsimony can be applied here. See below.


Yes, a chemical can affect the human being in two differen ways.
Or not.
There is no intrinsic logic and no evidence whatsoever for backing up a statement saying that
chemicals, just for being chemical substances, affect the body in more than one beneficial way, in general.
You left out the point of beneficial effects, btw. Numbness is not beneficial.
Beneficial side effects can happen. Or not.

When it comes to love, in contrast, the evidence for loving couples show that they can and generally do love each other in different ways, and that they in fact do not limit themselves to one way only.

as said above: while you might argue that chemicals can affect the human body differently.... you did not provide the evidence that chemicalls in general actually do affect the human body in more than one way.
It's a hidden assumtion, that you undertake.

Wow... you're REALLY stretching it here in an attempt to maintain your bias, aren't you? I do NOT need to provide evidence that chemicals generally do have more than one effect. All I need to do is provide evidence that it CAN happen. Oh, and chemicals also CAN have more that one benefit! Just take that aspirin I mention before. Not ONLY can it get rid of your headache, it can ALSO have benefits for your heart.

Clearly you intend to hold onto that confirmation bias for dear life and no amount of reason and logic is going to dissuade you.

 

[thomas t]

in an attempt to maintain your bias,

no, now I'm talking about the evidence in an unbiased way.

Oh, and chemicals also CAN have more that one benefit! Just take that aspirin I mention before. Not ONLY can it get rid of your headache, it can ALSO have benefits for your heart.

Yeah, Aspirin works in two different ways.
Other chemicals do not.
You assume that your mysterious chemical in the air that already affects the perception of beauty of landscapes acts like Aspirin (having 2 beneficial effects) as opposed to the substance that your wife takes which has 1 beneficial + 1 detrimental effect for her.

Chemicals involved in the perception of something do not necessarily act like Aspirin. There is no reason whatsoever to believe so. For not all chemicals in the world are like Aspirin, as you surely know.
You're assuming it does. And that's the second assumption that you make.

 

[QuestioningMind]

no, now I'm talking about the evidence in an unbiased way.
Yeah, Aspirin works in two different ways.
Other chemicals do not.
You assume that your mysterious chemical in the air that already affects the perception of beauty of landscapes acts like Aspirin (having 2 beneficial effects) as opposed to the substance that your wife takes which has 1 beneficial + 1 detrimental effect for her.

Chemicals involved in the perception of something do not necessarily act like Aspirin. There is no reason whatsoever to believe so. For not all chemicals in the world are like Aspirin, as you surely know.
You're assuming it does. And that's the second assumption that you make.

You assume that your mysterious chemical in the air that already affects the perception of beauty of landscapes acts like Aspirin (having 2 beneficial effects) as opposed to the substance that your wife takes which has 1 beneficial + 1 detrimental effect for her.

Do you seriously not recognize that the EXACT same thing can be said about your 'mysterious loving being'? FIRST you assume that such a being even exists... THEN you assume that this loving being is not just the reason that people see beauty in nature, but it's ALSO the cause of people finding certain scents to be pleasant.

So if you're not being biased, how is it that you can ASSUME all of this about your loving being, yet it seems like some HUGH stretch of the imagination to assume such things about my chemical?

Clearly you're far too biased to even recognize that you're being biased.

 

[Audie]

It's also possible that the story of Sodom and Gommorah is an allegory or the badlands were affected by sulfur.

Some people believe that fire and sulfur is an allegory for being alone for eternity.

Awful far fetched but regardless-he who i said is a fraud is a fraud, a con man.

 

[Audie]

Jesus told the prostitute to go and sin more.

" no more".

 

[Skywalker]

" no more".

The belief that prostitution is not a sin is against the Bible.

 

[Audie]

The belief that prostitution is not a sin is against the Bible.

Sheesh. You have to be hit over the head with it,
to see your mistake??

 

[Audie]

God is not the author of confusion. Anything that doesn't respect oneself and others is not of God.

So the tower of babel thing was ACTUALLY
a gentle aid to communication and nobody was
confused? You sure you read dat Bible?

 

[Skywalker]

So the tower of babel thing was ACTUALLY
a gentle aid to communication and nobody was
confused? You sure you read dat Bible?

God is not the author of confusion means God is not the author of anything that doesn't have a design and a purpose. Bible Contradiction? Is God the author of confusion?

Here’s a closer look at whether or not there is a contradiction:

1. When dealing with skeptics’ claim of Bible contradictions it seems one can never be reminded enough of what exactly is a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when two or more claims conflict with one another so that they cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense and at the same time. To put it another way, a Bible contradiction exists when there are claims within the Bible that are mutually exclusive in the same sense and at the same time.
2. One should be skeptical of whether this is a Bible contradiction given the Skeptic Annotated Bible’s track record of inaccurately handling the Bible. See the many examples of their error which we have responded to in this post: Collection of Posts Responding to Bible Contradictions. Of course that does not take away the need to respond to this claim of a contradiction, which is what the remainder of this post will do. But this observation should caution us to slow down and look more closely at the passages cited by the Skeptic Annotated Bible to see if they interpreted the passages properly to support their conclusion that it is a Bible contradiction.
3. A bit of background of each verse in its context might be helpful for readers.
   1. Genesis 11:7-9 in a chapter that is about the tower of Babel. Humans were trying to gather and build a Tower that reached heaven but then we see God frustrate that attempt.
   2. Both 1 Corinthians 1:27 and 1 Corinthians 14:33 are verses in a letter written by the Apostle Paul to a church in Greece at a major city of Corinth. Here he writes to them even as the church is in chaos and confusion about right doctrines and practice.
4. The skeptic cited 1 Corinthians 14:33 as denying that God is the author of confusion.
   1. Note in the context it is talking about the necessity of having church service in an orderly fashion. Verse 33 appeals to the basis for that is because “God is not a God of confusion.“
   2. The Greek word for “confusion” here is ἀκαταστασίας. In the NASB ἀκαταστασίας in Luke 21:9 is translated as commotion, in 2 Corinthians 6:5 is translated as tumults, in 2 Corinthians 12:20 as disturbance and James 3:16 as disorder. We thus see here from the lexical range that 1 Corinthians 14:33 is denying God is any of those things in His attribute of who He is within Himself (the genitive case is showing an attribute of God here).
   3. To be technically correct 1 Corinthians 14:33 says “God is not a God of confusion.” It does not say God is not an “author” of confusion, whatever that means by the skeptic. This is an important distinction in that God within Himself in His character is not confused but that does not mean God might ordaining confusion outside of Himself for His own purposes.