Jesus solves world hunger (Derail from serious topic)

[Guardian85]

I suppose I simply just rationalized.  But isn't rational good?

Not if you are rationalizing something that is not good to begin with.

[AnimatedDirt]

Sin must be completely unveiled.  So that all understand...no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work.  The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.

So the idea is that sin shows itself to be the destructive force that it really is, right?  Like, you can just look at the ravages of sin to know sin is bad, you don't have to take the bible's word for it.

What about homosexuality tips it off as being naturally bad?  I mean sure, lots of gay people get bullied, which sucks, and many commit suicide.  But I would argue that is the effect of living in a homophobic society more than the effect of homosexuality itself.

Discuss.

I have my views on homosexuality within the context of this life.  I know no other form of living.  I cannot answer this.  My view is that being a homosexual is no more a sin than stealing a penny, no more a sin than murder, no more a sin than what I am right now.  The homosexual has just as much chance of the salvation this God of the bible offers as I do, a heterosexual.  Only God can answer that, I can't.

[AnimatedDirt]

I suppose I simply just rationalized.  But isn't rational good?

Not if you are rationalizing something that is not good to begin with.

So point out where my rationalization is wrong in those instances.

[DeterminedJuliet]

If you view Jesus with the presumption that everything he does is good, then, of course, you'll see that everything he does is good. He freaked out at money lenders in a temple? That's good. He got a bunch of men to leave their live's work to follow him? That's good. He told everyone to render "unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar." That's good. There are rationalizations behind why all of those things could be good.

If people were to come into your house and treat it less than you would want it treated, it is not good for you to throw them out?  If "God" is, then the temple was where the people met to worship God.  He "got" a bunch of men to leave their work?  You presume they were forced.  Render to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar is bad?  How so?  It speaks of many things, but mostly about being a citizen in harmony with your govenment (as long as that gov. isn't making you do things that would be against God), paying taxes, helping in the community...I suppose I simply just rationalized.  But isn't rational good?

I wasn't trying to put those excerpts up as "bad" examples, just arbitrary. That's my point. It's easy to look at the nice things in the bible and say "oh, isn't it lovely" and it's easy to look at the bad parts and say "oh, isn't it horrid" but a whole, whole lot of it is arbitrary and has to be ascribed meaning. In fact, I think both atheists and Christians would agree that the bible is intentionally vague on a whole lot of things BECAUSE it's a text that's intended to be "interpreted".

[Guardian85]

I suppose I simply just rationalized.  But isn't rational good?

Not if you are rationalizing something that is not good to begin with.

So point out where my rationalization is wrong in those instances.

I did not say that any of those rationalizations are neccesarily wrong (though in my opinion you are rationalizing fiction), I was commenting on your assertion that if you can rationalize it, it automatically becomes good.

[Stevil]

The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.

The atheist demands objective, recreatable confirmation of theories. Otherwise how can we know that we aren't simply choosing to believe a theory based on what simply sounds desirable, or based on peer pressure etc.

[Guardian85]

I suppose I simply just rationalized.  But isn't rational good?

Not if you are rationalizing something that is not good to begin with.

So point out where my rationalization is wrong in those instances.

I did not say that any of those rationalizations are neccesarily wrong (though in my opinion you are rationalizing fiction), I was commenting on your assertion that if you can rationalize it, it automatically becomes good.

Like in another thread where you just provided a rationalization for slavery.

If we are to love others as ourselves, then slavery as we know it in our day is not condoned...so then the slavery of the OT or even the NT days must have been different and so treated different

I don't care how you can rationalize slavery. It is wrong to own another human.

[Ali]

Sin must be completely unveiled.  So that all understand...no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work.  The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.

So the idea is that sin shows itself to be the destructive force that it really is, right?  Like, you can just look at the ravages of sin to know sin is bad, you don't have to take the bible's word for it.

What about homosexuality tips it off as being naturally bad?  I mean sure, lots of gay people get bullied, which sucks, and many commit suicide.  But I would argue that is the effect of living in a homophobic society more than the effect of homosexuality itself.

Discuss.

I have my views on homosexuality within the context of this life.  I know no other form of living.  I cannot answer this.  My view is that being a homosexual is no more a sin than stealing a penny, no more a sin than murder, no more a sin than what I am right now.  The homosexual has just as much chance of the salvation this God of the bible offers as I do, a heterosexual.  Only God can answer that, I can't.

Okay, but then doesn't that fly in the face of the idea that a sin should be empirically obvious because it's empirically destructive?  Or is that not what you were trying to argue in the first place (serious question; I wasn't completely sure if that was even your point.)

[Dobermonster]

It's not this life where hunger, pain and death runs rampant that this magician (as you seem to suggest) came to prolong...But that would require actual reading into that piece of fiction.

Then why provide any ease of suffering in this life at all? Why just a tease?

You stated in another thread you used to be a Christian.  Do you still retain some of the beliefs (not that you believe these) in that you could see that this life is a fleeting moment in the great scheme of things?  We, Christians, believe that even if we suffer as the Jews of the Holocaust did or worse, the pain of this life is trivial compared to the offer of a better life.  You see a tease.  We (Christians) see hope.  It's the cup half-full, half-empty view.

Sin must be completely unveiled.  So that all understand...no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work.  The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.

I think it also helps to think that every wrong-doing in this life will be ultimately avenged. Revelations is all about vengeance against the evils of man - the slow, painful destruction of life and eventually the Earth and the cosmos.

[AnimatedDirt]

Sin must be completely unveiled.  So that all understand...no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work.  The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.

So the idea is that sin shows itself to be the destructive force that it really is, right?  Like, you can just look at the ravages of sin to know sin is bad, you don't have to take the bible's word for it.

What about homosexuality tips it off as being naturally bad?  I mean sure, lots of gay people get bullied, which sucks, and many commit suicide.  But I would argue that is the effect of living in a homophobic society more than the effect of homosexuality itself.

Discuss.

I have my views on homosexuality within the context of this life.  I know no other form of living.  I cannot answer this.  My view is that being a homosexual is no more a sin than stealing a penny, no more a sin than murder, no more a sin than what I am right now.  The homosexual has just as much chance of the salvation this God of the bible offers as I do, a heterosexual.  Only God can answer that, I can't.

Okay, but then doesn't that fly in the face of the idea that a sin should be empirically obvious because it's empirically destructive?  Or is that not what you were trying to argue in the first place (serious question; I wasn't completely sure if that was even your point.)

It SEEMS you may be asking, "If sin IS destructive, then it should be empirically seen".  I would simply say that not all sin is empirically destructive the moment after the sin occurs...or the destructive aspect of the sin is not always immediate.

If that wasn't it...please elaborate on your question.  I'm not all that intelligent.

[Ali]

Sin must be completely unveiled.  So that all understand...no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work.  The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.

So the idea is that sin shows itself to be the destructive force that it really is, right?  Like, you can just look at the ravages of sin to know sin is bad, you don't have to take the bible's word for it.

What about homosexuality tips it off as being naturally bad?  I mean sure, lots of gay people get bullied, which sucks, and many commit suicide.  But I would argue that is the effect of living in a homophobic society more than the effect of homosexuality itself.

Discuss.

I have my views on homosexuality within the context of this life.  I know no other form of living.  I cannot answer this.  My view is that being a homosexual is no more a sin than stealing a penny, no more a sin than murder, no more a sin than what I am right now.  The homosexual has just as much chance of the salvation this God of the bible offers as I do, a heterosexual.  Only God can answer that, I can't.

Okay, but then doesn't that fly in the face of the idea that a sin should be empirically obvious because it's empirically destructive?  Or is that not what you were trying to argue in the first place (serious question; I wasn't completely sure if that was even your point.)

It SEEMS you may be asking, "If sin IS destructive, then it should be empirically seen".  I would simply say that not all sin is empirically destructive the moment after the sin occurs...or the destructive aspect of the sin is not always immediate.

If that wasn't it...please elaborate on your question.  I'm not all that intelligent.

You said "no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work" so I was asking for the empirical proof of the destructive work of homosexuality.

[fester30]

Sin must be completely unveiled.  So that all understand...no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work.  The Atheist loves truth...empirical proof.

So the idea is that sin shows itself to be the destructive force that it really is, right?  Like, you can just look at the ravages of sin to know sin is bad, you don't have to take the bible's word for it.

What about homosexuality tips it off as being naturally bad?  I mean sure, lots of gay people get bullied, which sucks, and many commit suicide.  But I would argue that is the effect of living in a homophobic society more than the effect of homosexuality itself.

Discuss.

I have my views on homosexuality within the context of this life.  I know no other form of living.  I cannot answer this.  My view is that being a homosexual is no more a sin than stealing a penny, no more a sin than murder, no more a sin than what I am right now.  The homosexual has just as much chance of the salvation this God of the bible offers as I do, a heterosexual.  Only God can answer that, I can't.

No more a sin than a man with long hair?

Edit: Fixed quotes - Tank

[AnimatedDirt]

You said "no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work" so I was asking for the empirical proof of the destructive work of homosexuality.

There is none...none this side of life that I can promote.

[Guardian85]

You said "no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work" so I was asking for the empirical proof of the destructive work of homosexuality.

There is none...none this side of life that I can promote.

If it cannot be seen by us, then it is not empirical. Your belief in an afterlife does not qualify as empirical evidence

Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience . Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. Through quantifying the evidence or making sense of it in qualitative form, a researcher can answer empirical questions, which should be clearly defined and answerable with the evidence collected (usually called data).

[AnimatedDirt]

You said "no one therefore has to have "faith" that sin is bad, they will have the empirical proof of its destructive work" so I was asking for the empirical proof of the destructive work of homosexuality.

There is none...none this side of life that I can promote.

If it cannot be seen by us, then it is not empirical. Your belief in an afterlife does not qualify as empirical evidence

Ok.  LOL...I guess this means I alluded that my belief was empirical evidence?  Whatever.  Moving on.