Picards mistakes

[Harley Filben]

He is helping us... he's helping us to learn how to rely on him, to become more mature in our faith, to learn to deal with pain and sorrow. 'Help,' for the last time, does not mean just letting someone jump off a cliff; it means saving him, even if that means you have to trip him up or knock him down to do it.

Now this is just pure nonsense. So when he sends earthquakes and tsunamis he is "helping us rely on him"? Because those make it obvious that we CAN'T rely on him to do a damn thing. WE need to send rescuers, develop and deploy earthquake detectors, search for cures and vaccines etc etc.

No its not. I am called upon to give respect to my father, because he is my father. He absolutely does not have to 'earn' my respect; he has it. Now, he can abuse that respect, and make me cease to respect him, but he absolutely does not have to earn it. That is God's law.

When you are asked to justify this particular "God's law" what made you think that simply restating "it's God's low" will be enough? Yes we know that Bible claims it's God's law. Justify that law. Explain why your father "absolutely does not have to earn your respect". It's not that hard to become a father.

Well, for 33 years He walked around in Galilee, talking and preaching; then died and was resurrected again; I think that constitutes showing himself to the world. But whatever.

That's what a dusty old book CLAIMS. There is no proof. Why doesn't God reveal himself to us? Church calls God a "loving father". What kind of a "loving father" is he if he is not willing to reveal himself to his "children" and instead plays these ridiculous "now you see me now you don't" games.

No; the problem is not that we love fun and pleasure too much; the problem is that we don't love it enough. God is offering us eternal, unceasing happiness and pleasure; but we're too busy pottering around making mudpies to take him up on it. God wants us to be happy; but we're supremely determined to make ourselves miserable.

Justify your statement that we love fun and pleasure too much. What's wrong with loving fun and pleasure? They are good things.

Exactly; that's the Christian story of Christ's life and death, in a nutshell. Bravo. But let me explain it to you a bit; in Christianity, we believe that there are three Persons in God; The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; each is fully and truly God, and they are united together by their love for one another (in other words, God is love). So yes, the Son came down to earth, and sacrificed Himself to the Father; and what is more, he even cried out "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" All because he loved us.

This is completely ridiculous. Why did God need to sacrifice his son? If he wanted to forgive us why didn't he simply did so? Forgivness is a state of mind, how did seeing human race crucifying his own son help God forgive us? Furthermore nothing changed. Humanity kept going to war, producing murderers etc. etc. So Jesus accomplished nothing with his sacrifice did he?

Well, they already do know he exists; deep, deep down in their hearts, everyone really knows...but they are suppressing this knowledge, and have turned away from him. But if you and God want to get into a dare contest...I think I know who'd win.

Hey God come down here and reveal yourself!
I dare you!
I double dare you!!!!

Hmmm I guess I win.

He has! He 'came down' as you suggested, healed thousands, brought a man back from the dead, and then resurrected himself from the dead...and people still didn't believe in him. If we were too thickheaded to accept that, why should he bother to do it again?

So the dusty old book claims. Provide evidence for these claims.

[Captain Peabody]

Okay...

Yes, there was. They changed the language. They changed indulgences. They go rid of the whole 'Kill the unbeliever!' bit. Heck, a few months ago they got rid of Limbo.

I think I'm having a Chestertonian moment here.... so, not only are you attacking the Church for not having changed its morals and allowed certain modern-day 'fashionable' sins like adultery, but now you're attacking it for changing? My gosh, people; could you be any more desperate?

I think he was reffering to the more violent ones I posted.

Okay; I have no problem with any of the New Testament ones; whatsoever. You can make of that what you will.

Quite a pleasant one.

So first you attack God for interfering with us, and then you attack him for not interfering with us? Again, this is really getting kind of pathetic... its clear you're determined to play the poor little sinner who mean old God is picking on...well, if that's really what you want, then have fun with it. I can't make you change.

What chance has he given us within the last thousand years?

Every chance; in the last thousand years, his Church has been the most active; and it his through His Church that salvation comes. He has given us every chance.

What's messed up with them?

You consider every exercise of authority, every punishment, everything that interferes with anyone's vaunted 'freedom to do whatever the heck he wants' as a Big Bad Crime... that's just messed up.

I've made a grand total of two mentions of Hitler in this entire debate. And I was comparing the fact that they both seem to be genocidal maniacs, just one has a bigger stick to hit humanity with.

And one created humanity; and one died for humanity; and one loves us, and wants us to be happy. This is even stupider than it sounds.

Why do we need to rely on him?

Because we were created to rely on him; because we cannot be happy, or complete, without relying on him.

No, in God's case he's tieing us up and throwing us over the edge of the cliff.

Okay...I'm not even going to dignify this with a response. I've shown again and again how God has given us freedom, and I've said all that needs to be said on this topic; if you want to hate God, then don't let me stop you; but this is really starting to get on my nerves...

Of course not. It's been two thousand years!

Well, then I can't help you... and neither can God. Because even if you had lived back then, I don't believe you would have believed in Him anyway...plenty of people who saw him and witnessed his miracles didn't.

I think Teaos was pointing out that, by that logic, God endorsed Hitlers slaughter.

Okay then; so again you're attacking God because in your view he doesn't love us, and because he does love us... really, could this get any more pathetic?

When you are asked to justify this particular "God's law" what made you think that simply restating "it's God's low" will be enough? Yes we know that Bible claims it's God's law. Justify that law. Explain why your father "absolutely does not have to earn your respect". It's not that hard to become a father.

Okay then; I won't try to justify it. You don't have to obey it if you don't want...

That's what a dusty old book CLAIMS.

Wow...that's me shown. Yes, that's what a dusty book claims; and you don't have to believe that dusty old book if you don't want to; but I do, and I'm getting tired of it being attacked every which way be people who don't have the moral justification of a hamster.

Justify your statement that we love fun and pleasure too much. What's wrong with loving fun and pleasure? They are good things.

I didn't say that; see the part of my post you quoted.


Unless anyone has any substantial things to say besides the 'Whaaa! God's a meany!'s I've been hearing lately, then I'm going to leave this debate. It's obviously not accomplishing anything anymore.

[Captain Seafort]

Yes, there was. They changed the language. They changed indulgences. They go rid of the whole 'Kill the unbeliever!' bit. Heck, a few months ago they got rid of Limbo.

I think I'm having a Chestertonian moment here.... so, not only are you attacking the Church for not having changed its morals and allowed certain modern-day 'fashionable' sins like adultery, but now you're attacking it for changing? My gosh, people; could you be any more desperate?

He was refuting your point that:

You said that the church no longer follows the old rules. Which in and of its self is odd sine it seems to change with public opinion.

Yes, I've explained all that; and no, it doesn't change with public opinion; and that was almost 2000 years ago that the rules were changed, and there hasn't been much changes since then...

The church has changed enormously since the first century, most recently with Vatacan II.

No, in God's case he's tieing us up and throwing us over the edge of the cliff.

Okay...I'm not even going to dignify this with a response. I've shown again and again how God has given us freedom, and I've said all that needs to be said on this topic; if you want to hate God, then don't let me stop you; but this is really starting to get on my nerves...

If you want to debate this, grow a thicker skin and respond to th points made instead of ignoring those you don't like.

When you are asked to justify this particular "God's law" what made you think that simply restating "it's God's low" will be enough? Yes we know that Bible claims it's God's law. Justify that law. Explain why your father "absolutely does not have to earn your respect". It's not that hard to become a father.

Okay then; I won't try to justify it. You don't have to obey it if you don't want...

Again, you're dodging a question you don't like the answer to. You made the claim, now back it up.

[Sionnach Glic]

I think I'm having a Chestertonian moment here.... so, not only are you attacking the Church for not having changed its morals and allowed certain modern-day 'fashionable' sins like adultery, but now you're attacking it for changing? My gosh, people; could you be any more desperate?

What? Where was I attacking it at all? You claimed there had been no changes in two thousand years. I was showing that you were wrong. How can that possibly be interpreted as 'attacking' the church? Believe me; I could find plenty of other, better, things to attack it on if I wanted.

Okay; I have no problem with any of the New Testament ones; whatsoever. You can make of that what you will.

Uh, you condone the murder of children who curse at their parents?

So first you attack God for interfering with us, and then you attack him for not interfering with us? Again, this is really getting kind of pathetic... its clear you're determined to play the poor little sinner who mean old God is picking on...well, if that's really what you want, then have fun with it. I can't make you change.

What?
Are you even reading what I'm responding to? You asked what kind of world it would be if God didn't go around smiting every second person, and I said it would be much better than if he was.
How the hell is that "attacking him for not interfering with us"?

Every chance; in the last thousand years, his Church has been the most active; and it his through His Church that salvation comes. He has given us every chance.

Well whoop-de-doo for the church.
What my point was, is what proof has he given of his existance within the last millenium?

You consider every exercise of authority, every punishment, everything that interferes with anyone's vaunted 'freedom to do whatever the heck he wants' as a Big Bad Crime... that's just messed up.

No, I most certainly do not. Criminals need to be punished. But you don't need to destroy entire cities or depopulate the entire freaking planet to do so. Nor do you need to punish someone for wearing a cotton-polyester shirt, or being homosexual.

And one created humanity; and one died for humanity; and one loves us, and wants us to be happy.

Yeah, because killing everyone on the whole planet (and planning to do so again) sure means he wants us to be happy.

This is even stupider than it sounds.

Believe me; the feeling's mutual.

I've shown again and again how God has given us freedom,

Okay, lets do a small analogy here. Say someone gives you a bag of sweets, then says that if you wait an hour he'll give you a bigger bag of sweets. He says its completely down to your own choice which you want.
That is freedom.

Now, lets say the same guy then puts a loaded gun to your head, then says that if you don't choose to way he'll kill you.
That is not choice, and that is precisely what God is doing.

Okay then; so again you're attacking God because in your view he doesn't love us, and because he does love us... really, could this get any more pathetic?

1) I didn't say that, Teaos did. Go complain to him.
2) The point still stands, as you haven't made a rebutal to it. Other than 'your attacking God!' again.

Okay then; I won't try to justify it. You don't have to obey it if you don't want...

Nice dodge. Either answer the question, or concede the point.

Unless anyone has any substantial things to say besides the 'Whaaa! God's a meany!'s I've been hearing lately, then I'm going to leave this debate.

[Thorin]

Debates on god are are a lose-lose situation.
Neither side has any chance of changing their mind no matter how good your point is. Neither side will concede any points. It's utterly pointless.

[Captain Peabody]

Okay.... I have to say I've enjoyed debating with you, but I think its time for this to end. We've basically been discussing the same exact things for pages now, and no one's made a single concession to the opposite side. And what's more, this is also starting to get a little on the nasty side, which doesn't help. I have no hard feelings toward any of you, but this debate's getting a little repetive...not to mention tiring. So... I'm done defending Christianity for now. Bye-bye.

Debates on god are are a lose-lose situation.
Neither side has any chance of changing their mind no matter how good your point is. Neither side will concede any points. It's utterly pointless.

While I don't think that's always the case, a lot of the time it is... especially when the debatees are a little on the hard-headed side (which I'm definitely guilty of)...


Edit: Oh, and for those of you who'd like to see a little bit of where I'm coming from, I heartily recommend C.S. Lewis's The Great Divorce, The Problem of Pain, Mere Christianity, and G.K. Chesterton's The Everlasting Man, Orthodoxy, and Heretics...

[Sionnach Glic]

Debates on god are are a lose-lose situation.
Neither side has any chance of changing their mind no matter how good your point is. Neither side will concede any points. It's utterly pointless.

That would depend on the people you are debating with. I've debated with several people who were more than willing to concede on several points, as am I.

So... I'm done defending Christianity for now. Bye-bye.

As you wish.

[Mikey]

Wow - take one day-trip and you miss quite a bit, it seems.

Sorry, it was a relatively nice weekend here for November, and I took my daughter to the zoo. Her new favorite animal is the red panda, BTW, and after misinterpreting what I told her, she believes that they eat "shampoo."

Anyway:

I am not in a position to defend Christianity per se, what with not being a Christian and all - and thusly doomed to eternal damnation by their definition. That's OK with me; if I end up in Hell, at least I'll be with my friends. However, here's my take in a nutshell -

I have already mentioned my take on the Bible being truth as opposed to fact - and while I can't comment on the New Testament, there are certainly some horrific things in the Old Testament which I can't condone; and which I don't believe can be taken fundamentally. Fundamentalism is, after all, what has led to many of the reiligion-related problems of the world.

Many of the problems that were mentioned here, such as the Church changing its rules, stances, etc., are problems with an organization, not with the underlying faith. That is bound to happen, as these are organizations comprising imperfect beings - humans.

My personal belief as to the question of the drug addict e.g is that part of G-d's gft of free will is the requirement for mankind to be responsible for himself and his fellow, and not wait for someone else, like G-d, to do all the work. In my faith, on the Day of Atonement each year, we are reminded that we can beg for atonement for sins against G-d - but not for those committed against our fellow man. In another light, there is the old joke about the priest caught in a flood:

After the water reached ankle deep, some boy scouts came by in a canoe. "No, the Lord will save me." After the water was up to the second story, some firefighters came in a motorboat. "No," he said, "G-d will save me." After he was on the roof of his rectory, a helicopter came by. "No, G-d will save me." The he died in the flood. On reaching heaven, the priest said, "I put my faith in you, Lord! Why didn't you save me?"

"What are you talking about?" said G-d. "I sent two boats and a helicopter!"

As for G-d providing proof of himself - well that's really the antithesis of faith, isn't it? In a coldly logical light, remember: we created G-d, not the other way around. In other words, mankind created religion to fill a need; religion did not develop before man created it. As a product of mankind, religion is bound to be both flawed and malleable - but for those of us who find comfort, solace, and a sense of community, bonding, and history in it, it's what we have to go with.

[Teaos]

Ok since this is over I just want to define my point since you seem to think I was going from both sides.

My problem was with the contradictions in ideas. Give us free will but only if we follow a very exacting and alot of the time stupid evil rules.

God loves and helps us... but not really. He hasnt done anything for 2000 years.

[Captain Peabody]

Sorry to spoil the party, guys, but its just I was starting to feel a little beat up in here; it seemed like there were always 2 or 3 guys at a time going at me, while I didn't have a shred of backup. Just a little too tiring to keep up for long.

But really; I can understand where you guys are coming from. Its basically the problem of pain and judgement, which is an ancient Christian dilemma... though it doesn't personally bother me much, I can at least understand what you're thinking. But if any of you are interested in further exploring these issues, I would heartily recommend The Problem of Pain, by C.S. Lewis; it basically give the answers to some of the questions that you've been asking (though of course much more eloquently than I ever could... ). If you read that book, then you'll understand pretty much where I'm coming from.

Oh, and Mikey; actually, many Christians believe that the Jews are also saved through their Covenant with God...but whatever.

[Mikey]

actually, many Christians believe that the Jews are also saved through their Covenant with God...but whatever.

Really? That's nice to know... I was under the impression that one had to accept Jesus as the Christ and as the Messiah in order to be saved; also that most Christians blame modern Jewry personally for the death of Jesus.

Teaos - I believe that G-d has asked us to live in a certain way, and invited us to follow a set of guidelines.

[Teaos]

I believe that G-d has asked us to live in a certain way, and invited us to follow a set of guidelines.

He may ask but as I and Rochey both pointed out when you have the gun of eternal damnation pointed at your head there is not much of a choice.

[Mikey]

He may ask but as I and Rochey both pointed out when you have the gun of eternal damnation pointed at your head there is not much of a choice.

And I have already pointed out that heaven ane hell, or eternal damnation, are Christian concepts and don't apply to what I write.

[Teaos]

Ah sorry then I thought we were on Christianity.

[Tsukiyumi]

I thought you were on organized religion in general, then it rapidly changed into 'The People vs. Christianity'.