I'm back, BUT...

---

If you would like to be able to engage them on matters involving the Bible, may I suggest that you visit http://www.evilbible.com

Quote:And what makes you think I'm not running around naked?

Originally Posted By: RadThere is good in them, as well as all people.I'd say it's maybe something like this:1. Things that benefit society and yourself are positive. (Good)2. Things that have no effect are neutral.3. Things that are bad for society and/or yourself are negative. (Evil) Maybe a bit simplistic, but it probably would work. I'd say your ideas warrant further examination. Right off the bat, I could add:4. Those things that enhance the dignity of mankind as a species.In my opinion, this trumps your 1 - 3, and can operate in spite of any of them. Nevermind that the term "bad" is often subjective.Measuring things by society is always risky because, quite often, society has its head up its ass...especially since the advent of the TV.

Originally Posted By: HClGod knew exactly how we would sin at the moment of creation, didn't He? So then what is the point of all the drama that followed, about sinning and punishment?To show us, collectively, that we can't abide by God's laws and that we require a savior to redeem us. In the OT, we fail time and time again. The first part of the NT, the gospel, literally means "the good news". Quote:In any case, how does Jesus' death absolve us of our sins? You can answer, "because the Bible says so", but it doesn't explain how. God sacrificed his son, which was a charade anyway since He sprung right back to life. Okay. If i stole from my neighbor, how does that make it alright? If I steal again, does it make that alright also?You, as an imperfect human being capable of only limited understanding of the universe around us, must be able to accept the fact that not everything in said universe can be explained to our satisfaction. But I must point out that it is not the sacrifice of Christ that saves us...it is our faith that saves us. Faith that the death of Christ is sufficient to absolve us of our sins. So, once again, you'll just have to wait for the evidence.  Quote:It appears that God made people to do what they did, which is sin, then he puts on a big show starring his only son. It all rally makes very little sense if you think about it.God does not make us sin. Knowing we will sin and making us sin are two different things. We have a choice...always did and always will. Free choice is paramount to the whole thing. What value is a choice to do the right thing when there is no choice?

Originally Posted By: Rad

Why isn't #4 covered under #1 already?

Originally Posted By: thor

Measuring things by society is always risky because, quite often, society has its head up its ass...especially since the advent of the TV.

Originally Posted By: RadHow do you separate mankind from society? It is not mankind that must be separated...but the guidlines for his conduct.

Originally Posted By: Rad

That's not an answer to my question...

Since your question was a request for clarification of what I posted, you don't get to make that call. But I'm sorry you couldn't tolerate the response. :wink:

People will invariabley re-write the rules to say what they want them to based on the lowest common denominator, if it lies within their capacity to do so. The current effort to re-write the definition of "marriage" is a current example of this. That's why re-writing the rules must lie outside the ability of people to do. When folks can alter the definition of right and wrong to their own advantage, the concept of right and wrong ceases to have any meaning.

Originally Posted By: RadIsn’t enhancing the dignity of mankind as a species a benefit to society and, therefore, included in #1? No. #1 is included in #4...with at least some things in #4 not included in #1.

Quote:

what makes you think I'm not running around naked?i don't think resteronts or shoppign place woudl allow you in naked. or parent let you work with their kids. now..in your own home..whatever floats your boat. :smile:

Originally Posted By: thorNo. #1 is included in #4...with at least some things in #4 not included in #1.Well that just kinda says it all, doesn't it? Certain rules/guidelines are created using reason and logic to which are quite able to cover the area to which they were assigned. Then suddenly you (representing the religious fundamentalist)(perfectly, I might add) stomp on them with your own rule that you automatically feel is superior to all others. When shown that your rule is already covered quite well by the original rules, you completely disagree claiming that it is the other way around but not showing a shred of proof for your assumption.

Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thorNo. #1 is included in #4...with at least some things in #4 not included in #1.Well that just kinda says it all, doesn't it? Certain rules/guidelines are created using reason and logic to which are quite able to cover the area to which they were assigned. Then suddenly you (representing the religious fundamentalist)(perfectly, I might add) stomp on them with your own rule that you automatically feel is superior to all others. When shown that your rule is already covered quite well by the original rules, you completely disagree claiming that it is the other way around but not showing a shred of proof for your assumption. That's pretty clear proof that you don't understand what I'm talking about. That's OK...you haven't had Psych 101 yet.

Originally Posted By: thorThat's pretty clear proof that you don't understand what I'm talking about. That's OK...you haven't had Psych 101 yet. And that is clear evidence that not only do you hold a mental position of superiority on any subject you are passionate about (I do respect your passion, if not your reasoning, or lack-there-of) but that you also have a very limited knowledge of science. If you did, you'd know that the term "proof" applies only to Mathematics and cannot apply to anything else. It is also evidence that you lack any capacity to actually argue a point but instead just rely on arrogantly assuming, and damn near claiming, that you are the only one capable of seeing "the truth".

Originally Posted By: bobalicious Originally Posted By: thorThat's pretty clear proof that you don't understand what I'm talking about. That's OK...you haven't had Psych 101 yet. And that is clear evidence that not only do you hold a mental position of superiority on any subject you are passionate about (I do respect your passion, if not your reasoning, or lack-there-of) but that you also have a very limited knowledge of science. If you did, you'd know that the term "proof" applies only to Mathematics and cannot apply to anything else. It is also evidence that you lack any capacity to actually argue a point but instead just rely on arrogantly assuming, and damn near claiming, that you are the only one capable of seeing "the truth". Have you or have you not had Psych 101?

Correct, I have not. But as its an American class, I may have studied something quite similar, maybe more advanced, in my own school system. Who knows?

Sadly my only knowledge of the class is from obscure film and tv references. It seems like it was always the class that the stupid guys took to pick up hot nerdy chicks.