***** Disclaimer*******
I'm not an expert on this matter
*****/Disclaimer*******
Since 1920, the world's population has been growing at an exponential rate, reaching 2 billion in 1927, 3 billion in 1960, 4 billion in 1974, 5 billion in 1987, and 6 billion in 1999. It's projected to reach 7 billion by Halloween by the United Nations, but the United States Census Bureau pushes it back until next March. With the almost explosive world population growth, we've experienced a rather severe increase in things humans do, i.e. eating, defecating, farting, but namely breathing. I had a thought that seemed a little silly, but had that kernel of plausibility that odd facts normally have. I wondered that with the enormous increase in breathing, where does all the body heat we give off go?
It's been said that adults breathe 18,000 - 30,000 times a day. We have approximately 3.8 or 3.9 times more people giving off that heat than we did 100 years ago. Is that enough to make a difference in the world climate?
In short, global warming is caused by mouth breathers.
The problem here is that you are using current knowledge to explain that Leviticus passage. Assuming that it did guess E.coli and the properties the rectal wall put you at more risk of infection and transmission, how do they come to the gay killing and persecution part?
And if we are using current knowledge, you will also need to factor in the use of condoms in addition to the diversity of the sexual act (meaning homosexual activity does not equal anal sex- like you mentioned eariler) to understand that the( or this part of if you prefer) scriptures are way outdated and irrelevant for our current time.
And it is important to nitpick on the matter since at one point in our history Christians were using the bible to justify slavery just like it is doing nowadays to justify this double standard in living conditions for and acknowledgment of gay people.
And I am not trying to side track the discussion here but I consider this to be a valid parallel showing how at the bible(or any other holy book) is not a good tool to derive our morals from.
It was already explained in an earlier post the direct benefits (societal and evolutionary) of not doing the 'major sins' whether or not god condemns them.
Disclaimer: I am not disputing the fact that some Christians had a major role in the abolition of slavery but I would argue that it's human nature and compassion that triumphed over religion. And as expected, we cherry-picked the parts that helped the cause. However this does not preclude the fact that within holy books, the persecution of man that is (arbitrarily) deemed less equal than his brethren is encouraged or supported in some way or form.
I've stayed overlong in this thread trying to just spread some background on that passage. I've done what I can do and I'm tired of my points being picked over down to the wording when I'm just trying to give people information. I'm tired of people quoting me and responding to what I'm saying like I'm condemning them and everyone that has the same lifestyle to the darkness. Double standards piss me off, too. I guess you can't have a discussion on the internet where both sides assume the other's humanity and allow a little room for error and try to work through it. Most of what I've received in this thread seems like it has been filled with thinly veiled malice, but that may just be me. If it's not just me, I hope deep inside you have a kernel of shame that eats away at you until you PM me an apology.
And quite frankly, I'm just tired of some people acting like I'm a complete idiot.
Honestly nekro, if I can't use current knowledge to explain that leviticus passage, what knowledge should I use? Mid 20'th century? That's not a good one. 19'th century? Still not a good one. I'm not going to go through and respond to your points simply because they're frivolous and silly. Do some research and learn how to carry on a polite conversation with quibbling over shit like this. And no they didn't have fucking condoms back then. Birth control was the woman's responsibility.
There's a reason these threads don't work out. It's because someone comes along and responds with malice and pisses everyone off.
[quote=Hiero;/comments/811923]Actually I was referring to the plethora of bacteria and venereal diseases that were present without the sophisticated medical practices we have today. It wasn't a dig at HIV, it was a dig at how promiscuity could and frequently did result in the death of those involved, due to the myriad micro-organisms not found elsewhere on the body. I hope you're not offended, I thought it was known fact.
Because it's more dangerous to screw my boyfriend in the butt then it is for me to screw my girlfriend in the butt, right?
you kno what i think? the basis of a christian is to not resist evil, and by that i mean the evil directed at you not go do evil things. so no a real christian would accept the injustice and try to help you accept it as well. This goes for every other comment out there about fighting for rights and that christians should fight for rights as well. Did Christ fight injustice, no he accepted it. He did not resist evil and that is what all christians are called to do. and yes it aint pretty for Christians. I hope there isnt any more confusion in that matter.
This is something that, back when I was christian, I never was able to embrace.
If something is wrong, it's not a right or privilege, it's our right as human beings to see that the wrong is fixed.
This is not a privilege, but a responsibility, regardless of what faith or lack of you have.
I don't know what denomination you are, BlackShepherd, but I've NEVER seen that Christians are supposed to behave like doormats. When good men stand back and let shit go down, then that's when they stop being good men. I suppose you mean we should all be pacifists, but you're wrong. There's a time and place for everything - I'm sure you've heard that before.
I'm not saying that I condone the persecution of people, I'm saying that Christianity is by no means a passive religion. It should be an active religion that actively does good things for the betterment of others. A log can sit back and say, "what will come will come," but a man is supposed to be a bit more resourceful. Sure unavoidable shit happens, but I've never seen it where we're directed to twiddle our thumbs while we're oppressed. The beginnings of the church was underground because of persecution. They didn't sit back say, "I accept this injustice." No, they said, "fuck that, we'll do it anyway."
I know I'm probably exaggerating your point a little bit, but Christ was no human carpet. Neither was Peter, or Paul, or any of the other disciples... Mercy and justice are duties.
I meant to touch on the greatly increased risk of std's in homosexual activity in comparison with heterosexual activity, not imply that homosexuals were promiscuous.
Are STDs transmitted in new ways I am unaware of? Or did you just make that up?
By homosexual activity, I mean anal sex. By heterosexual activity, I mean vaginal sex. I didn't want to have to clarify, but apparently I do.
well, I have to go to class, I might come back to this thread later. I really really hope necro doesn't try to dispute this point, as it's supported by science. Source on request.
Also, to people arguing about sex and it's purpose - it's a symbol and celebration of the union of two people, 2 bodies, 1 flesh. The fact that we do it to reproduce is an added bonus. If you read the Song of Solomon, also known as Song of Songs, it's like a porno for it's time period. Not a lot in there about makin' babies. But there's a whole lot in there about makin' babies, if you know what i mean.
And how exactly do you examine the context when the text is literal? It's not a parable where a gay man is killed. It's a line of text that says "if a man lies with another man... kill him," that simple. You're right not to like literalist interpretations, but you still ahvent explained to me how you escape literalism when you have text that is EXPLICIT in its instructions.
Then you're talking about VD's that could have been passed by hetero sex. I see no moratorium on heterosexual activity, so I don't see the point. Gay is not a slang word for promiscuity. We're just as monogamous as anyone else.
Actually, it does condemn promiscuity, and there is a moratorium on heterosexual activity, mainly during a woman's monthly. (I had to look up moratorium, but i suspect we have different definitions from your context) I never said that Gay is a slang word for promiscuity, I was condemning promiscuity, and yes I know that you're monogamous. I may have miscommunicated... I meant to touch on the greatly increased risk of std's in homosexual activity in comparison with heterosexual activity, not imply that homosexuals were promiscuous.
I escape that literalist interpretation by an acute understanding of the characteristics God has shown to value. It requires a deeper study than just reading something like " And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." and the next time you jerk off, after you finish, lose a hand. Blind obedience is nice, but understanding the spirit of the law is much more important. If you read all the laws that Israel had, you realize there's no way you could follow them, much less follow the spirit of them. And you begin to understand the need for the sacrifices, because no one could follow the law - all who tried were equally failures at it (except one).
The bible disagrees with you and in-fact both of those took place in the bible and one can only assume took place for a great long while until liberal interpretors like you convinced most people to stop.
...
What health reasons? If you're referring to HIV (which is insulting, by the way), it didn't exist in human beings until the mid 20th century.
...
Unfortunately, as I have said, you can't really argue with their logic. They read the book and they do what it says. If you agree that they are reading the word of god, then they are acting logically. I don't know how love figures into that, but presumably, god will love them for doing what he says (or at least, they will say as much).
Sure they took place, because people like the pharisees were extremists gunning for a literal interpretation without looking at context and examining the deeper messages like "what characteristics should the people that pride themselves as God's chosen people portray?"
Actually I was referring to the plethora of bacteria and venereal diseases that were present without the sophisticated medical practices we have today. It wasn't a dig at HIV, it was a dig at how promiscuity could and frequently did result in the death of those involved, due to the myriad micro-organisms not found elsewhere on the body. I hope you're not offended, I thought it was known fact.
I get tired of seeing that passage from Leviticus used as a basis for persecuting other people, when the vast majority of the laws in the book are aimed at setting Israel apart from other peoples. The prevailing message of the book is "You're God's people. You don't need to fit in with other people, you have God and He has you. Don't go wandering off."
I guarantee that no parent ever allowed their child to be stoned over words said during a moment of heat. The same with adultery. A moment's indiscretion doesn't deserve a loss of life, but such things need to be dealt with regardless, because they are serious issues.
As for homosexuality, I want to think that it was included for health reasons, as a great many things were. I can list them if you'd like but I'd prefer to not have to go through all of them.......
Crazies who don't use their brain about these things tend to wander off the trail of logic and love.
im gone out for smokes, be back in a bit to respond to responses
However, I'm going to throw out two arguments (which are at odds with one another, but in the interest purely of exploring the choice of choosing, I present them both)
1) The old testament clearly states that the Hebrew tribe was chosen by God to be his people. The new testament will later say that this was God choosing to use them as the primary source for spreading His Good Word, and was not a choice that limited forever The Chosen to only be Jews and their descendants, but even in that case it means that no one else is truly chosen to believe until they have been told the Good Word. This would mean that, in fact, not all people are chosen to believe, because not all people have been told the Good Word of God.
2) God presents Himself as fact. No where in the bible does God every ask, tell, or command people to believe in Him. In fact, He is wholly presented as an entity the existence of which cannot be denied. Belief, then, is distilled down to merely knowledge of the existence of God. If you show someone an apple, and then ask if they believe in apples, would be a pretty silly thing to do. Likewise, once someone has been shown God, they can no more chose not to believe in Him than they can chose not to believe in apples. In this argument, it is impossible to choose not to believe once you have been chosen to do so (the assumption being that, in order to know you have been chosen to believe, God has presented himself to you such that you would understand the nature of your choosing).
While these two arguments are at odds with one another to some degree, the both lead to a similar conclusion: Some people are chosen to believe, but not everyone is. This leaves then, in God's plan, space for nonbelievers through no conscious act of the non-believing party. A very simple way to say this would be: It's okay with God if you don't believe in God. Corollary to this, I think most non-believers are perfectly fine with the existence of believers.
Thus, whether or not God exists, everyone should be perfectly happy and secure that God isn't going to get upset with either party, either because He does exist, but is okay with non-believers, or He doesn't exist, and isn't around to care either way.
I'd rather not debate doctrinal differences in this thread, no offense intended, but since you addressed it, the least I can do is respond.
1) It seems to me what you're getting at is similar to what we debated in high school as the "White Room Baby." (essentially it's a baby raised in a white room with no contact with people and the question is posed "will it go to heaven?" my response was "why on earth would someone do that?") My response to this is to thank God that I don't have to judge those people that haven't heard the Good Word, as you put it. Yes, I dodged the question. Speculating what happens after our death is a little foolish, given how little we've been told. Speculating about what happens after someone else's death is more than a little foolish, for who can fully know another man? I'll not do it.
2) This argument ran by me a little fast, it seemed ready to collapse all by itself :(. Yes, there are instances in the Bible where the existence of God is treated as a given, but belief and faith by no means discounted. There's plenty of instances where the reality of God shocks those involved. And just as many instances where doubt plays a role in events.
If I were an arguing man, I'd concede the point about there being room for unbelievers in God's plan. I'd place them as a) uninformed or skeptics or c) followers of a different religion. I'm tired and have lost the thread of what I'm trying to explain.......... It was something about loving people, I think... Or maybe not being concerned with hypothetical ignorant savages, instead concentrating on living your life as best as you can? It was something like that..... Fuck it, Jesus rescues me from my sins, I'm sure He wont leave people hanging out to dry just because they haven't heard of Him.
I'm with you to a degree, but is there any reason you can think of why God would "move through" those boundaries rather than simultaneously existing in all places and times with no need to move at all? I've always imagined that - should a supernatural being of unlimited power exist - God would always be everywhere (and everywhen).
Yes that's what I was trying to get at through metaphor. Apparently I'm not as good at metaphor as I thought I was.
My understanding of the Garden of Eden would be that - prior to eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, all acts were performed in innocence and ignorance - neither good nor evil, and that - even after eating of the fruit, any act performed in innocence or ignorance would remain neither good nor evil. What changed in people was the knowledge of intent. We can - since eating the fruit - be good, or be evil. It was a blessing and a curse. The ability to act with moral intent is what we gained from that Tree. Similarly, one could view the punishment of being tossed out of the Garden as an interpretation of the result of knowing that moral acts existed: Adam and Eve simply could not abide a place where all acts were acts of naiveté, nor could such a place abide them.
I don't believe that the Paradise was a place of pure good. Clearly, there was a snake there whose actions were not "good." Rather, I believe that the Paradise was a place where creatures were unable to act with any desire to harm or benefit. It was a place of pure curiosity. I believe that the snake was curious as to what would happen if someone ate from the tree, but I do not believe that a snake such as that would be allowed in the Garden at all if the Garden was a place of pure Good.
Nope, there had to be an ability to choose in order to fully love. You can't force love, otherwise it's mind control (you get the picture). Lucifer had to be there, had to be able to tempt them so that they could act out of God's will and obey. For what is obedience if all of God's commands were in line with Man's will? There had to be something that was contrary to what our desires are for us to truly choose to love God. As for everything being amoral in the Garden of Eden, that doesn't seem logical.
****************************************************************************************************************
I said I didn't want to debate doctrinal differences in this thread, and I still don't. I only wanted to outline that I believe, what I believe, and respond to a common argument I've seen.
I'm a Christian. I beg your forgiveness if I seem bad at it.
Alright, I didn't read the entire topic since I'm a bit on the lazy side, but I'm sure some fantastic points have been made on the religious side of the debate, and some incredible logical fallacies pointed out by the (for the sake of brevity, I'll generalize) atheists.
First off, I'd like to discuss the thesis of your first post, proletaria:
With that in mind, I spout not the renunciation of Yaweh or Allah (or Zeus, Ra, Seth, Zaroaster, Shiva, Vishnu, Thor, Ananzi, etc.) from my title, but request that those living in the certitude of such a being explain why they believe in their God(s).
With a topic title like you have, I was ready to descend with disdainful contempt on your thread and condemn it to the flames for approaching a matter such as this with such hostility. Then, I read your post and realized this was a civil discussion reaching for enlightenment, not a thinly veiled attempt at bashing my beliefs like so many I've seen before. Personally, I don't understand why people think it's fun to do that as anyone, in a moment of anger, can portray themselves and others affiliated with them as much less than they really are. But that's beside the point of this post.
I believe because I choose to believe. A corollary to that, depending on your beliefs, believe it or not, is that I've been chosen to believe. Personally, I think everyone's been chosen to believe, some people just haven't chosen to believe. I'd also like to be quite clear in that I believe in the existence of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
Now that we've established what I believe and the bare skeleton of why, I'll go in to a bit of detail. Let's have a look at the nature of God, in particular, where He is. If wikipedia can be trusted, (I've looked for a relatively neutral source) then God omnipresent. With the linkage of space and time, as has been proven by science, this means that God is everywhen, also. Let us assume we agree thus far on the nature of God if He exists, which I maintain that He does. Simplified, God is outside outside the bounds of time and space. Forgive me if I assume that you know the difficulty in reaching any sort of evidence in proving in temporal and spatial terms the existence of the one being that is not only beyond those boundaries, but can move through them as you and I would move through water (a weak metaphor, but I hope you get my point).
I've heard it claimed before that God can't exist simply because evil exists. This theory irritates me to no end because it oversimplifies. That plaintive voice whining, "How could a God that is good allow this world to be filled with such evil?" is a coward for refusing to dive deeply into the matter see what exactly happened to bring about evil. (For this point I'll speak as if you believe, pray forgive me) Simply put, man was created to love. A part of love is the ability to not love, a choosing to love. We were created to experience all good things, and one of those is obedience. To choose to love by acting not by our own will, but by another's. And so, Eve was tempted, caved, and Adam listened to her and caved, too. It's my belief, and I've seen this belief reflected in others such as C.S. Lewis and Ted Dekkar, that sinning (doing evil things) became much easier after "The Fall of Man." I realize this is vague, and presently I will explain it to the best of my ability.
If you read Genesis, it speaks of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was not God's wish that we choose that fruit, because there's nothing good about evil. He only wanted good things for us, so He gave them to us. Thus we had the knowledge of Good. In the choosing of that Tree, we gained knowledge of Evil, and now that we know it and have it, it's difficult to stop. The paradise of only good was lost, and then we had evil along with the good.
That covers some of the points, but that is by no means the entire picture. I'd like to take this opportunity to commend proletaria for asking about this topic without hostility, and, as an aside to give you a bit of background on my character, would like to condemn the condemning of others. Christianity doesn't teach disowning or hatred or redneck ignorance about real issues. It just says to love God, love others, and love yourself. It is surprisingly difficult, though.
I'd gone to class when the forums were blowin up over this, and when i got back, people were posting things like "end boss fight (SPOILER)" except they named the boss.... It kind of defeats the purpose of putting spoiler up.
So with all the datamined info from the beta, I'm kinda scared to open topics and read and maybe post on them because I'm afraid of people forgetting about spoilers in all the excitement. And, if I was a bit less skilled in the application of logic, I would have been spoiled a few times already. Anyone know how this website will handle spoilers? Will they crack down or now that the info's out are they just going to be like "you'd've found out eventually"
you'd've is a real word where i'm from. don't hate 'cause I'm proficient at using contractions.
No, I don't think it will be "jailbroken." I think making the private server, populating it with npcs, giving the npcs ai, scripting events, designing loot, and and fixing bugs will cost more effort than paying 50-60 bucks.
It's simply not cost effective fun.
Chances are the people that can do that, will more likely put their efforts into creating more effective bots and hacks / exploits / cheats w/e...
OT: I can see how someone not realizing "jailbreak" is actual term, instead of slang/jargon, could use it in this context. Online only being the jail, offline multi and single being freedom...
this post could be biased...... I'm not sure that my opinion on online only isn't influencing my reasoning.
I'm not an expert on this matter
*****/Disclaimer*******
Since 1920, the world's population has been growing at an exponential rate, reaching 2 billion in 1927, 3 billion in 1960, 4 billion in 1974, 5 billion in 1987, and 6 billion in 1999. It's projected to reach 7 billion by Halloween by the United Nations, but the United States Census Bureau pushes it back until next March. With the almost explosive world population growth, we've experienced a rather severe increase in things humans do, i.e. eating, defecating, farting, but namely breathing. I had a thought that seemed a little silly, but had that kernel of plausibility that odd facts normally have. I wondered that with the enormous increase in breathing, where does all the body heat we give off go?
It's been said that adults breathe 18,000 - 30,000 times a day. We have approximately 3.8 or 3.9 times more people giving off that heat than we did 100 years ago. Is that enough to make a difference in the world climate?
In short, global warming is caused by mouth breathers.
Give it a moment's thought and discuss it.
I've stayed overlong in this thread trying to just spread some background on that passage. I've done what I can do and I'm tired of my points being picked over down to the wording when I'm just trying to give people information. I'm tired of people quoting me and responding to what I'm saying like I'm condemning them and everyone that has the same lifestyle to the darkness. Double standards piss me off, too. I guess you can't have a discussion on the internet where both sides assume the other's humanity and allow a little room for error and try to work through it. Most of what I've received in this thread seems like it has been filled with thinly veiled malice, but that may just be me. If it's not just me, I hope deep inside you have a kernel of shame that eats away at you until you PM me an apology.
And quite frankly, I'm just tired of some people acting like I'm a complete idiot.
Honestly nekro, if I can't use current knowledge to explain that leviticus passage, what knowledge should I use? Mid 20'th century? That's not a good one. 19'th century? Still not a good one. I'm not going to go through and respond to your points simply because they're frivolous and silly. Do some research and learn how to carry on a polite conversation with quibbling over shit like this. And no they didn't have fucking condoms back then. Birth control was the woman's responsibility.
There's a reason these threads don't work out. It's because someone comes along and responds with malice and pisses everyone off.
Because it's more dangerous to screw my boyfriend in the butt then it is for me to screw my girlfriend in the butt, right?
Then again, condom's were not around either.
Wait...yes they were...for four hundred years...
I don't know what denomination you are, BlackShepherd, but I've NEVER seen that Christians are supposed to behave like doormats. When good men stand back and let shit go down, then that's when they stop being good men. I suppose you mean we should all be pacifists, but you're wrong. There's a time and place for everything - I'm sure you've heard that before.
I'm not saying that I condone the persecution of people, I'm saying that Christianity is by no means a passive religion. It should be an active religion that actively does good things for the betterment of others. A log can sit back and say, "what will come will come," but a man is supposed to be a bit more resourceful. Sure unavoidable shit happens, but I've never seen it where we're directed to twiddle our thumbs while we're oppressed. The beginnings of the church was underground because of persecution. They didn't sit back say, "I accept this injustice." No, they said, "fuck that, we'll do it anyway."
I know I'm probably exaggerating your point a little bit, but Christ was no human carpet. Neither was Peter, or Paul, or any of the other disciples... Mercy and justice are duties.
well, I have to go to class, I might come back to this thread later. I really really hope necro doesn't try to dispute this point, as it's supported by science. Source on request.
Actually, it does condemn promiscuity, and there is a moratorium on heterosexual activity, mainly during a woman's monthly. (I had to look up moratorium, but i suspect we have different definitions from your context) I never said that Gay is a slang word for promiscuity, I was condemning promiscuity, and yes I know that you're monogamous. I may have miscommunicated... I meant to touch on the greatly increased risk of std's in homosexual activity in comparison with heterosexual activity, not imply that homosexuals were promiscuous.
I escape that literalist interpretation by an acute understanding of the characteristics God has shown to value. It requires a deeper study than just reading something like " And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." and the next time you jerk off, after you finish, lose a hand. Blind obedience is nice, but understanding the spirit of the law is much more important. If you read all the laws that Israel had, you realize there's no way you could follow them, much less follow the spirit of them. And you begin to understand the need for the sacrifices, because no one could follow the law - all who tried were equally failures at it (except one).
Sure they took place, because people like the pharisees were extremists gunning for a literal interpretation without looking at context and examining the deeper messages like "what characteristics should the people that pride themselves as God's chosen people portray?"
Actually I was referring to the plethora of bacteria and venereal diseases that were present without the sophisticated medical practices we have today. It wasn't a dig at HIV, it was a dig at how promiscuity could and frequently did result in the death of those involved, due to the myriad micro-organisms not found elsewhere on the body. I hope you're not offended, I thought it was known fact.
I guarantee that no parent ever allowed their child to be stoned over words said during a moment of heat. The same with adultery. A moment's indiscretion doesn't deserve a loss of life, but such things need to be dealt with regardless, because they are serious issues.
As for homosexuality, I want to think that it was included for health reasons, as a great many things were. I can list them if you'd like but I'd prefer to not have to go through all of them.......
Crazies who don't use their brain about these things tend to wander off the trail of logic and love.
im gone out for smokes, be back in a bit to respond to responses
I'd rather not debate doctrinal differences in this thread, no offense intended, but since you addressed it, the least I can do is respond.
1) It seems to me what you're getting at is similar to what we debated in high school as the "White Room Baby." (essentially it's a baby raised in a white room with no contact with people and the question is posed "will it go to heaven?" my response was "why on earth would someone do that?") My response to this is to thank God that I don't have to judge those people that haven't heard the Good Word, as you put it. Yes, I dodged the question. Speculating what happens after our death is a little foolish, given how little we've been told. Speculating about what happens after someone else's death is more than a little foolish, for who can fully know another man? I'll not do it.
2) This argument ran by me a little fast, it seemed ready to collapse all by itself :(. Yes, there are instances in the Bible where the existence of God is treated as a given, but belief and faith by no means discounted. There's plenty of instances where the reality of God shocks those involved. And just as many instances where doubt plays a role in events.
If I were an arguing man, I'd concede the point about there being room for unbelievers in God's plan. I'd place them as a) uninformed or
Yes that's what I was trying to get at through metaphor. Apparently I'm not as good at metaphor as I thought I was.
Nope, there had to be an ability to choose in order to fully love. You can't force love, otherwise it's mind control (you get the picture). Lucifer had to be there, had to be able to tempt them so that they could act out of God's will and obey. For what is obedience if all of God's commands were in line with Man's will? There had to be something that was contrary to what our desires are for us to truly choose to love God. As for everything being amoral in the Garden of Eden, that doesn't seem logical.
****************************************************************************************************************
I said I didn't want to debate doctrinal differences in this thread, and I still don't. I only wanted to outline that I believe, what I believe, and respond to a common argument I've seen.
Alright, I didn't read the entire topic since I'm a bit on the lazy side, but I'm sure some fantastic points have been made on the religious side of the debate, and some incredible logical fallacies pointed out by the (for the sake of brevity, I'll generalize) atheists.
First off, I'd like to discuss the thesis of your first post, proletaria:
With a topic title like you have, I was ready to descend with disdainful contempt on your thread and condemn it to the flames for approaching a matter such as this with such hostility. Then, I read your post and realized this was a civil discussion reaching for enlightenment, not a thinly veiled attempt at bashing my beliefs like so many I've seen before. Personally, I don't understand why people think it's fun to do that as anyone, in a moment of anger, can portray themselves and others affiliated with them as much less than they really are. But that's beside the point of this post.
I believe because I choose to believe. A corollary to that, depending on your beliefs, believe it or not, is that I've been chosen to believe. Personally, I think everyone's been chosen to believe, some people just haven't chosen to believe. I'd also like to be quite clear in that I believe in the existence of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
Now that we've established what I believe and the bare skeleton of why, I'll go in to a bit of detail. Let's have a look at the nature of God, in particular, where He is. If wikipedia can be trusted, (I've looked for a relatively neutral source) then God omnipresent. With the linkage of space and time, as has been proven by science, this means that God is everywhen, also. Let us assume we agree thus far on the nature of God if He exists, which I maintain that He does. Simplified, God is outside outside the bounds of time and space. Forgive me if I assume that you know the difficulty in reaching any sort of evidence in proving in temporal and spatial terms the existence of the one being that is not only beyond those boundaries, but can move through them as you and I would move through water (a weak metaphor, but I hope you get my point).
I've heard it claimed before that God can't exist simply because evil exists. This theory irritates me to no end because it oversimplifies. That plaintive voice whining, "How could a God that is good allow this world to be filled with such evil?" is a coward for refusing to dive deeply into the matter see what exactly happened to bring about evil. (For this point I'll speak as if you believe, pray forgive me) Simply put, man was created to love. A part of love is the ability to not love, a choosing to love. We were created to experience all good things, and one of those is obedience. To choose to love by acting not by our own will, but by another's. And so, Eve was tempted, caved, and Adam listened to her and caved, too. It's my belief, and I've seen this belief reflected in others such as C.S. Lewis and Ted Dekkar, that sinning (doing evil things) became much easier after "The Fall of Man." I realize this is vague, and presently I will explain it to the best of my ability.
If you read Genesis, it speaks of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It was not God's wish that we choose that fruit, because there's nothing good about evil. He only wanted good things for us, so He gave them to us. Thus we had the knowledge of Good. In the choosing of that Tree, we gained knowledge of Evil, and now that we know it and have it, it's difficult to stop. The paradise of only good was lost, and then we had evil along with the good.
That covers some of the points, but that is by no means the entire picture. I'd like to take this opportunity to commend proletaria for asking about this topic without hostility, and, as an aside to give you a bit of background on my character, would like to condemn the condemning of others. Christianity doesn't teach disowning or hatred or redneck ignorance about real issues. It just says to love God, love others, and love yourself. It is surprisingly difficult, though.
you'd've is a real word where i'm from. don't hate 'cause I'm proficient at using contractions.
It's simply not cost effective fun.
Chances are the people that can do that, will more likely put their efforts into creating more effective bots and hacks / exploits / cheats w/e...
OT: I can see how someone not realizing "jailbreak" is actual term, instead of slang/jargon, could use it in this context. Online only being the jail, offline multi and single being freedom...
this post could be biased...... I'm not sure that my opinion on online only isn't influencing my reasoning.