Question about the Christian God

[lolDeath]

Oh, so the Catholic church has no problem with it?

[Esau of Isaac]

Oh, so the Catholic church has no problem with it?

Don't ever change, Death.

[lolDeath]

I wouldn't if I could.

[Sophius]

Countless species of animals utilize the sense of taste for survival daily.

Could you provide examples?

There are exceptions, but that is to be expected in a changing environment. If you expected taste to be a perfect system then you're a moron.

I acknowledge that what I refer to are exceptions.However, these exceptions are too many and too deadly to be reliably identified by taste.

Stop trying to seem as though you are intelligent by dressing up your batshit insane beliefs with needlessly complex terms. You're saying animals have a magic ability to detect whether something will kill them if they eat it. You are an idiot for believing this, because gigantic amounts of animals are poisoned on a daily basis through both natural and artificial means without their knowledge at the time.

Are dogs also trying to get in touch with the native american voodoo? Because mine was killed as a child because poison was placed in its food bowl by a crazy neighbor. But hey, let's keep going; how about those rats I poison with rodenticide? You know, the ones that are not detectable by the animal's taste and smell?

I'm not talking about voodoo(which native americans don't even practice) but an actual survival skill that humans and other animals have the potential to access. If you need a reference, look at the book Tom Brown's Field Guid to Edible and Medicinal Wild Plants.

No, I don't. You're saying that humans have the best sense of taste in the world; you are woefully mistaken, and likely believe this to be true based on the false notion that because humanity is the most intelligent species on the planet, it must be the best in every other department as well.

If you would look, I'm not saying that you imbecile! What I'm trying to say is that humans are the only beings to truly command uninstictual pleasure from taste.

That's enough of thesaurus.reference.com for you, brah.

Excuse me? If my manner of speech preturbs you, I honestly don't give a shit. The fact that the possibility that one might possess such a vocabulary is disincluded from you conception makes apparent the level at which your intelligence stands!

Not anymore they're not, on a general scale. Guess what they mostly do nowadays: run casinos. They don't "become one with nature" too much anymore as YOU so woefully misconceive.

I'm talking about their cultural teachings, not the charicatures mdern society has twisted them into.

Notice the contradiction? If your statement above this quote was true, most, if not all, animals would be blind, deaf, tasteless, and anosmic. Most, if not all, animals would solely focus on the sense of touch.

WhenI say touching, I mean coming into contact with or expieriencing. Stop being such an insufferable nitpick. Both of you in fact.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Sophius

[BK-201]

I'm not talking about voodoo(which native americans don't even practice) but an actual survival skill that humans and other animals have the potential to access. If you need a reference, look at the book Tom Brown's Field Guid to Edible and Medicinal Wild Plants.

So you are trying to argue humans can learn whether or not a food will not kill them without having someone eat it and die?

If you would look, I'm not saying that you imbecile! What I'm trying to say is that humans are the only beings to truly command uninstictual pleasure from taste.

This is word for word what you said:

Taste serves as enjoyment for all animals. But humans have most tastebuds allowing them to enjoy it more fully.

If humans have the most tastebuds they also have the most evolved taste (which we don't). After this fact has been refuted, you decided to go and say that this isn't what you were trying to say? Therefore, if animals have more tastebuds which you pretty much conceded to, by your logic, humans are not only ones to eat for pleasure.

Excuse me? If my manner of speech preturbs you, I honestly don't give a shit. The fact that the possibility that one might possess such a vocabulary is disincluded from you conception makes apparent the level at which your intelligence stands!

The point is you are using words to deter us from your actual points. You don't know what you're talking about so don't supplement a lack of knowledge with a thesaurus.

When I say touching, I mean coming into contact with or expieriencing. Stop being such an insufferable nitpick. Both of you in fact.

What the hell are you actually trying to say? You clearly stated that in your stupid beliefs that smell, sight, and touch were much more reliable. You cannot come into contact magically with something to detect its properties automatically.

Edited September 24, 2010 by BK-201

[Kinata]

Here's some more food for thought from the wondrous members of my college.

What do you all think of female ministers/pastors/preachers/etc? According to two of my male friends it is a sin to be a female preacher (yes, both of them are hardcore Christians). One even compared it to rape and murder until the other person mentioned it wasn't that bad because the woman at least had to be in faith to be a preacher in the first place. What do you all think?

To add my 2 cents to a 2 week-old topic, I'm guessing most female preaches are part of less religious congregations, akin to reform Jews, which I find very hypocritical. I think some pope once said that if you choose which rules of a religion to follow and which to not, aren't you just following your own beliefs and not the religion itself? Like a female preaching about how to be Christian but conveniently ignoring the rules she is breaking. The way I see it, you either have to fully support a religion or not at all. (Don't let me give you the wrong impression, I'm the latter)

As for the reason of this belief, it is just one of many examples of how the Christian/Jewish god is sexist. If a woman wants to believe in Christianity or Judaism, she has to accept that her god is sexist and not try to combine religion and modern beliefs.

@Obviam

The purpose of religion is to be a belief system that involves a god or gods, with entertainment and morality being secondary results. Like I said, it seems like hypocrisy to only care about parts that seem to be ethical and claim to be supporters of the entire religion.

As for the debate about animals, I think Sophius is saying that animals instinctively know what foods are edible for them, though he is not phrasing it well. It's pretty obvious that they can't magically sense if their favorite foods are poisoned.

To start my own topic, if God is so perfect, how could he have free will? He is omniscient, so he always knows what the most moral action is. He is omnipotent, so can do the most moral action. He is omnibenevolent, so he will always do the most moral action. This suggests that God is more like a machine of goodness than a sentient being. After reading the beginning of Genesis (which my school has been requiring me to do), it seems that God is in fact imperfect, for there are several examples of him not knowing something and having a bigger ego than one would expect of an all-kind being. Though he does appear to be omnipotent.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Kinata

[Esau of Isaac]

Could you provide examples?

Moles. Shrews. Polar bears.

I acknowledge that what I refer to are exceptions.However, these exceptions are too many and too deadly to be reliably identified by taste.

In your opinion, of course.

I'm not talking about voodoo(which native americans don't even practice) but an actual survival skill that humans and other animals have the potential to access. If you need a reference, look at the book Tom Brown's Field Guid to Edible and Medicinal Wild Plants.

No, none of them have the potential to access some kind of magic powers, okay? If you believe they do then you are braindead.

If you would look, I'm not saying that you imbecile! What I'm trying to say is that humans are the only beings to truly command uninstictual pleasure from taste.

And you're wrong. I know, I'm blown away too.

Excuse me? If my manner of speech preturbs you, I honestly don't give a shit. The fact that the possibility that one might possess such a vocabulary is disincluded from you conception makes apparent the level at which your intelligence stands!

Stop. Please. Stop. You look like a douchebag by trying to link all of the vaguely complex words you can find into an average sentence.

WhenI say touching, I mean coming into contact with or expieriencing. Stop being such an insufferable nitpick. Both of you in fact.

Then stop being such a retard.

[Phoenix Wright]

Excuse me? If my manner of speech preturbs you, I honestly don't give a shit. The fact that the possibility that one might possess such a vocabulary is disincluded from you conception makes apparent the level at which your intelligence stands!

You're an idiot to think that using complex words makes you correct. To assume that your babble perturbs me is ridiculous as well. For you of all people, to assume anything is retarded, as your deductive skills are so unbelievably bad I have a feeling you don't even have a true grasp of logic itself.

At which my intelligence stands? You're fucking hilarious, seeing as you believe that animals have magical powers to tell them what to eat and what not to eat. Just...be quiet. It suits you.

I'm talking about their cultural teachings, not the charicatures mdern society has twisted them into.

You specified nothing of the sort, and to be honest, I think you know jack-shit about Native Americans anyway.

WhenI say touching, I mean coming into contact with or expieriencing. Stop being such an insufferable nitpick. Both of you in fact.

You're still not making any sense. To come into contact with something is to touch something. An experience is a different word with a different definition altogether. An experience can be intangible. Touching, or "coming into contact with," can not, by definition. Oh but wait, you're only looking up synonyms, not definitions. My bad. Edited September 25, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[Zanarkin]

Not to bother making a new topic i shall post this here...

I was talking with my friend, a christian... I think so anyway. We started talking about death and what happens after we die and i mentioned that christians believe that as long as a person repents, and believes in christ and what not he goes to heaven (which i mentioned to find ridiculous). My friend gets a bit irked and says thats not what christianity says and that a serial killer cannot go to heaven because even if he repents he still wants to commit murder. I then go on to say that what ever the church goes by so does heaven (I heard this from a religion teacher), therefore the serial killer would also be forgiven even if he has the urge. This goes on for a while (and it gets a bit heated), and at the end we decided to leave it (more like the bell rang). This has been bothering me for the whole day, specially since i felt he was putting words into my mouth. The reason i post it here is because i would like to hear opinion from both sides.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Ulki

[Esau of Isaac]

Your friend literally made that shit up on the spot, probably just to be contentious. I don't think there's a denomination of Christianity out there that says reformed killers repenting and genuinely asking for God's forgiveness aren't allowed into Heaven because they like killing. Which is debatable in any and all killers anyways.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

IIRC the idea is that if they repent truly at some point for their sins before their death they will be allowed into Heaven.

[Celice]

It depends. If you look at the three biblical books, the origin God(s) predetermine which souls are to be saved/recognized, and which will never be loved by God(s). In this way, it could be true that the killer could never get into heaven, because his soul was not "valid" from the beginning. This is stated quite obviously pretty early on in the Qu'ran, but I don't remember where it occurs in the other two versions.

Additionally, one sect of Christianity (Calvinism? Protestantism?) believed something along the lines of predetermination: your chances at heaven weren't in your hands, but decided before you were infused with your soul. I can't remember if these branches are the same ones which also believe there is only a limited number of souls in existence--but in any case, here, too, could the killer be denied because of some reason beyond his murders.

In this way, repenting or not, the killer could get away with his actions so long as his soul is already screened for acceptance into wherever. Likewise, the pious religious person would be shit outta luck.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

It depends. If you look at the three biblical books, the origin God(s) predetermine which souls are to be saved/recognized, and which will never be loved by God(s). In this way, it could be true that the killer could never get into heaven, because his soul was not "valid" from the beginning. This is stated quite obviously pretty early on in the Qu'ran, but I don't remember where it occurs in the other two versions.

Additionally, one sect of Christianity (Calvinism? Protestantism?) believed something along the lines of predetermination: your chances at heaven weren't in your hands, but decided before you were infused with your soul. I can't remember if these branches are the same ones which also believe there is only a limited number of souls in existence--but in any case, here, too, could the killer be denied because of some reason beyond his murders.

In this way, repenting or not, the killer could get away with his actions so long as his soul is already screened for acceptance into wherever. Likewise, the pious religious person would be shit outta luck.

There are a few branches of Christianity that preach predestination. Calvinism is arguably the most fervent in its preaching. I believe it's Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses who also believe in it albeit a slightly altered form where they believe they are the chosen ones and they have to find the other members who were also chosen. It's some number that's in the hundreds of thousands, I think.

[Celice]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD203xXl9Yk

I can't believe I forgot Mormonism.

[Haze]

There are a few branches of Christianity that preach predestination. Calvinism is arguably the most fervent in its preaching. I believe it's Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses who also believe in it albeit a slightly altered form where they believe they are the chosen ones and they have to find the other members who were also chosen. It's some number that's in the hundreds of thousands, I think.

You'd be wrong there, my mother's a Jehovah's Witness, they don't believe in destiny, and I think they believe there is a set number of people who are supposedly chosen to rule alongside God in his new order(144,000 I think), most of which have already lived and died. That doesn't stop other people from gaining eternal life or whatever.

Edit - Mother FUCK I lost the Black Knight and got Sothe instead. RAEG.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Haze

[Celice]

If true, then that's another version of the predestination. Only this time, you're not completely screwed for not winning the God-Lottery.

Now it's just like the Matrix, where, there's gonna be some Ones, and everyone else can kick-it safely when the Ones are found

[Caliban of Sycorax]

You'd be wrong there, my mother's a Jehovah's Witness, they don't believe in destiny, and I think they believe there is a set number of people who are supposedly chosen to rule alongside God in his new order(144,000 I think), most of which have already lived and died. That doesn't stop other people from gaining eternal life or whatever.

Edit - Mother FUCK I lost the Black Knight and got Sothe instead. RAEG.

Then I was mistaken on the predestination part, but to an extent it is predestination, just not saved/damned. More like saved/damned/ruling everything.

[Rewjeo]

Mormons believe they can do stand-in baptisms, so friends or family who have passed on that weren't Mormon in life can become Mormon and make it into heaven, so thee's no predestination there.

What people think about Mormon's is sorta hilarious to someone like me who has grown up in Utah. That said, the Salt Lake valley is very different from rural areas...

[Kiriane]

It seems like nobody's particularly informed about this issue. You're all arguing with half information. Can't anybody get all the relevant information before posting, these days?

To answer the question, your friend is half-correct. Define repentance as not only being sorry for doing it in the past, but also wanting to turn over a new leaf. That's the actual meaning of the word: a change of mind(set). In that case, a serial killer who genuinely repents would no longer kill, nor (ideally) want to kill. If he gets the "urge", the important thing is that he recognises it as a temptation to go and sin again, and does not fall into the trap. If he continues to kill, then he hasn't repented, ergo he won't get into heaven.

As for "whatever the church goes by so does heaven", that's the general view of the Catholic church. The Protestant version is "what the Bible goes by, so does heaven". That's the doctrine of divine inspiration. In any conflict between the Church (or anything really) and the Bible, Bible wins every time or it isn't Protestant Christianity.

On predestination: the short version is that time itself is created. If you were to draw a timeline, starting from the Big Bang (or creation, or whatever floats your boat), God would be outside of it as He is the one who created time. I think C.S. Lewis (was it him?) called it the "eternal present" - every time is "now" to God. Therefore we do have free will, but God knows what we will choose already, because He is watching us choose it. Those whom God foreknew He also predestined, etc, etc. Salvation is not some cosmic lottery, but our free choice to accept or reject Him.

I'm not as familiar with JWs and Mormons (know the stuff, but not in such great detail), but I can say offhand that both of them have significant issues with internal contradiction, as well as contradiction with the Bible, and lousy historical track records besides. Rewjeo is correct about Mormons, and Haze is essentially correct about JWs, about what they believe on the subject of predestination.

tl;dr If you're going to argue things like this, get the facts first please.

Now, those are only the official viewpoints. Some people, even within churches, are uninformed and have beliefs that are not strictly in line with their church. Happens more often with mainstream "Christians" than sects/cults, but it's true of people in general.

[Zanarkin]

It seems like nobody's particularly informed about this issue. You're all arguing with half information. Can't anybody get all the relevant information before posting, these days?

To answer the question, your friend is half-correct. Define repentance as not only being sorry for doing it in the past, but also wanting to turn over a new leaf. That's the actual meaning of the word: a change of mind(set). In that case, a serial killer who genuinely repents would no longer kill, nor (ideally) want to kill. If he gets the "urge", the important thing is that he recognises it as a temptation to go and sin again, and does not fall into the trap. If he continues to kill, then he hasn't repented, ergo he won't get into heaven.

Thats what he was aguring going further by saying that the killer would just kill again because it was a "sexual thrill" and so he'd never be forgiven. At that time, thinking it right now, it would have been good to answer that statement, like this, "If a person lies and repents, is he not forgiven eventhough he is most likely to do it again?" or something like that. Anywho thanks for the answers people.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Ulki

[Aere]

Because that evil may bring good to others? Nothing is simply pure evil.

[TheBritishEltshan]

Because that evil may bring good to others? Nothing is simply pure evil.

Josef Stalin. I may be rather oblivious to history, but if pure evil has ever existed, I know his name. From the few history text books I've read, he is selfish, paranoid, obsessed with self gain, wants to be ruler, kills his friends (and butlers, and I can't remember but has probably killed a wife before), abusive, I could go on.

[Celice]

And, in several respects, was a productive leader, provided, and responded to what became actual threats to the county and its people absolving selectivity

One should define their quality (in this case, 'evil') before supposing qualitative all over the place :/

[Espinosa]

Josef Stalin. I may be rather oblivious to history, but if pure evil has ever existed, I know his name. From the few history text books I've read, he is selfish, paranoid, obsessed with self gain, wants to be ruler, kills his friends (and butlers, and I can't remember but has probably killed a wife before), abusive, I could go on.

He also played a big role in defeating a far greater evil with consequences that would have stretched far beyond what Stalin's absurd regime had lead to, if it hadn't been prevented.

[MidnightShade]

God doesn't want believers who don't have faith in him, so he waits until a certain time. Just think about it for a minute. Would you trust someone who just up and invaded your country? Would you be loyal to him, especially if he had ideas that seemed radical to your world view? that's how I view it, anyway. I, for one, would not trust an invader over a loving friend.

Because that evil may bring good to others? Nothing is simply pure evil.

I disagree. Satan, for instance, is obviously pure evil. I do agree, however, that anyone of this Earth cannot be pure evil. Good is somewhere inside everyone, even Hitler. have you seen his home videos? He loved his family. Yes, for the most part, he was evil and dark, but a glimmer of light shined in his heart, albeit a very small one.

Edited April 14, 2012 by MidnightShade