god's failure?

[Anthemyst]

Originally Posted by gosuruss

The questioning of assumptions is what we NEED to do. What are my assumptions? That morality is related to the physical and mental suffering of life relating to actions and intentions. Anybody could create their own assumption that says: "My god that i choose to believe says X is wrong." And then we could agree under that assumption his assertion is logical. That assumption is ridiculous. What evidence do I have to support that my god says that? Why should my god be more important than other people's "gods"? But when your assumptions and the effects of said assumptions begin to infringe on other people's lives, we can't simply let people's human rights be infringed upon because others have poor assumptions. Do you agree?

Sure, but when you start a discussion with "Hey, how do religious people reconcile God's perfection and condemnation of homosexuality with the existence of homosexuals?", you are electing to set your debate within the sphere of religious reasoning, which includes the premise that morality is what God says it is. If you want to start another discussion about whether believing that is rational or not, fine, but it's a separate argument.

[gosuruss]

Originally Posted by Brock

If this is the case, why do some people compare gays to molesters?

Apparently, god hates the gays but not the molesters.

A better question is, how does Feif know that child molesting is immoral? What method is he using to determine such a thing?

[Feif]

Originally Posted by vividox

I hate it when people say "God wrote the bible." No he didn't, man wrote the bible. You believe that he wrote the bible through man. As if those people could actually hear the word of God, completely understand what he was saying, accurately transcribe it, and keep that message accurate through 2,000 years worth of translations. There is a huge difference.

Why do we believe that Matthew or Mark or Luke or John or anyone else who wrote their piece of the bible had any more of an ear for God's message than Pope Benedict or Joel Osteen or anyone else who claims to have conversations with God?

Judaism believes that God did, in fact, write the first five books. When Moses went up Mt. Sinai, he copied it over with God directing him, so there were no mistakes.

As for translations, Jews have the original Hebrew. There are Torah scrolls that are close to a thousand years old, and they are exactly the same, letter for letter, as the ones we have now.

As for the new testament, I don't believe in it, so I don't really care what Christians think about it.

For the Old Testament other than the first five books, Jews believe that they were written by men who were divinely inspired - mainly prophets. But we don't believe they were written by God. That is only the first five books. That is why in the Talmud, there is a rule - we don't learn new laws from the books of the prophets, only from the first five books. The rest are used to prove things sometimes, but not to learn new laws from. All laws have a basis in the first five books.

[ditkaworshipper]

Originally Posted by Lucy

I know, that's why it is so funny.

OK, wasn't sure if you caught the reference since you're Jewish.

Originally Posted by Keep It Real, Yo

NAT is not about saving time

NAT is about turning 6's into 5's

NAT's a little too good at this.

[A Blind Squirrel]

Originally Posted by ao fan

so, how do we know that those who thought they were talking to god 2000 years ago weren't just all suffering from mental illness?

It was probably just 1 or 2 particularly charismatic people suffering from mental illness and the rest followed.

However, what exactly is 'mental illness'. It is only mental illness if it is considered outside of the norm. If everyone heard God, then the people who didn't would have mental illness.

Moses, et al, probably "did' suffer from mental illness according to modern day psychiatry. Doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Originally Posted by Feif

Sorry, that's not how I see it. First off, I don't hate gays. I think they're doing something wrong, but I don't hate them for it.

I think it's a test from God. God tests all of us with various things. Sometimes we pass the test, sometimes we fail. Judaism believes that God only tests people with a test they can pass. In my mind, someone being gay is just being tested, and their job is to abstain from having sex. There's no sin in being gay - only in having gay sex. It's a temptation like any other temptation that people have, and it must be overcome. Why would it prove that God is fallible? Because he gives people desires to do the wrong thing? If we didn't have these desires, and automatically did only the right things, then how could we be rewarded for doing what is right?

Maybe it's a test for you, to see how tolerant you can be, and how well you can mind your own business?

[Anthemyst]

Originally Posted by Brock

If this is the case, why do some people compare gays to molesters?

Apparently, god hates the gays but not the molesters.

People god hates according to the bible include gays, murderers, the subjects of any king who has been tricked into sleeping with Abraham's wife, and men who refuse to impregnate their brother's widow. People god is pretty neutral on include rapists and slavers.

[Feif]

Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan

Maybe it's a test for you, to see how tolerant you can be, and how well you can mind your own business?

For the most part, I do that. However, I won't say that it's ok. If a vote comes up to legalize gay marriage, I won't vote in favor of it. If you want to do it at home, go ahead - I can't stop you, and I won't try. I think it's wrong, but hey, it's your life. But when people want me to say it's ok, I have a problem with it, because to me, it's not ok.

[gosuruss]

Originally Posted by Anthemyst

Sure, but when you start a discussion with "Hey, how do religious people reconcile God's perfection and condemnation of homosexuality with the existence of homosexuals?", you are electing to set your debate within the sphere of religious reasoning, which includes the premise that morality is what God says it is. If you want to start another discussion about whether believing that is rational or not, fine, but it's a separate argument.

There are much more simple ways to make this point. I didn't start this discussion, but I felt compelled to post.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
-Epicurus
~300BC

[ao fan]

Originally Posted by A Blind Squirrel

It was probably just 1 or 2 particularly charismatic people suffering from mental illness and the rest followed.

However, what exactly is 'mental illness'. It is only mental illness if it is considered outside of the norm. If everyone heard God, then the people who didn't would have mental illness.

Moses, et al, probably "did' suffer from mental illness according to modern day psychiatry. Doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong.

but in that case, there are still a lot of people these days who talk to god but we just assume their message is crazy talk, not based in reality and they are wrong. it's probably not all that different from the people back then who did it. seems like that bible thing just spread like wildfire, whereas the message from modern day people who do it does not.