I've attached the error message I am getting. I am not sure how helpful it will be as it is a standard warning from my antivirus that the site I am going to holds malicious software on it.
not sure if the admins are aware of this, but the first page of this thread was blocked by my web browser and antivirus program as having malicious content on it. As such I am unable to find out exactly what this whole MTGS Beta thing is about other than what the announcement says in it. Just thought you guys would want to know about this fact.
That's not what would happen. A capacity is just that: a capacity. As in, the amount that would stay alive. If there are thirteen billion people on the planet, but the capacity is only twelve billion, one billion people will die, not the entire species. Hell, most species are at the maximum capacity for their environments most of the time. Competition for scarce resources is a major selection pressure, and any trait that would limit population growth is strongly selected against - individuals with the trait find their offspring "crowded out" by the offspring of those that don't. So if God is interested in running the human race according to the same natural order by which other species operate, he shouldn't have any problem with letting people breed like rabbits until they hit capacity, and then letting the excess starve. Nature just sucks that way.
Except that in actuality there is currently enough resources on the planet to feed all the animals that currently are alive, as well as all of the humans that are currently alive on the planet, and to never have anyone wanting for anything. The fact of the matter is that the only reason scarcity exists is because there are people who want more than they actually need, and as such they are the limiting factor on the environment.
It's not that they misinterpret Satan's role, it's that Satan as a character changed over the history of Judaism. Satan was originally an angel of the Heavenly Host, who served as an accuser for humanity but was, nevertheless, an angel.
Overtime the tradition of Satan being a fallen angel and embodiment of evil came about as apocalyptic ideas developed.
It is purely human Dogma and Doctrine that says that Satan's role has changed. And you are wrong, Judaism still holds that Satan is part of God's Court. It is purely a Christian Construct that Satan has become something that represents Evil in this world, not a Judaic one.
Also, only God knows what Satan's role in all of this happens to be. I am not saying that Demons/Fallen Angels don't exist... I am just saying that I doubt that they exist in the way that we were led to believe that they exist by Christian Doctrine.
Are YOU God? Do YOU presume to tell me what is and is not a necessary condition of human life and the survival of the human species?
Since you just did. Additionally, I did not tell God, I told you. Unless your claim is that you are God? One would guess it is the way you're handing out edicts about how some people must be killed.
I do not condone Murder. I would never be in favor of killing another human being in cold blood. What I am arguing is that the natural process of dying, or dying because of disease, or other natural causes is acceptable because it keeps the population in check.
I do not support the premeditated murder of individuals in anyway.
If I dream of a girl that doesn't actually exist, and in my dream she has sex with me - then, AFTER I wake up, I create my dream exactly as a reality - does she have sex with me of her own free will?
My answer is NO.
We are God's dream made real. That is all. There is no free will there.
You are defining Omniscience too narrowly. In your definition there is only one possible path that our decisions can ever take. Thus there is only one Future. I personally however prefer to think of time as a "Timey Wimey Ball". Anyways, in my opinion God can see all possible futures and make informed guesses about what we are going to do based on that, but he doesn't necessarily know for certain what actions we are going to take until after we have taken those actions. Thus we can have free will despite his having Omniscience.
(by the way, that video makes a whole lot more sense when viewed with the other half of the conversation going along side it).
The origins of sacrifice comes from the ancient belief in Pagan Religions (not Christian or Judaic ones) that you could feed the Gods. The reason that the Jews continued burnt sacrifice has more to do with the concept that the Sacrifice was to serve as a stand in for the suffering that they would have to undertake if they were not sacrificing something, due to their sin which separates them from God. Basically the Sacrifice that the Jews were performing was intended to act as a stand in for Jesus who performed the ultimate sacrifice.
You will note that the Jews no longer perform Animal Sacrifice.
As for Tithing, that serves two functions. Neither of these two functions is something that fulfills a goal that is absolutely needed by God himself. These functions are as follows:
1.) It provides a means by which to perform Charity to those less fortunate than the Church. You will notice that many churches also perform Missionary work. This Missionary work does a great deal of good in a great many locations. The fact that they also provide "The Good News" while performing this missionary work is a secondary concern. Afterall, building houses, providing medical care, and various other things to people who don't normally have access to such things is far more important than hearing "The Good News."
2.) It provides the necessary funding to finance the Church's bare minimum financial requirements. Churches may be a Non-Profit Organization, but they still have to pay Electricity Bills, Water Bills, and other Utilities. They still need to buy paper to print their bulletins. They also need to have the money necessary to pay their permanent staff members for their services rendered, as some churches do have full-time staff.
Oh and 3.) They need money to provide for the well being of the Clergy. This is especially important in the case of the Catholic Church where the Clergy is wholly dependent on the Church itself for their livelihood.
I would disagree with your opinion that spreading the gospel was a secondary act. Doesn't that bolded part strike you as self-serving? For such a good and altruistic organization why does it engage in such a self-serving action at all?
I don't recall asking about what tithing is or what the money goes to. I already had I grasp on this. Thus my question, "Regardless of how the money is spent, what makes religion not a scam?"
I'm not understanding why people think I'm making a value judgment about charity. The church and charity are two distinct subjects. I'm not concerned with how the money is spent. I'm simply concerned with why God wants His flock's money.
Okay, question for you. If you were part of an organization, any organization, doesn't matter what the goals and aims of that organization happens to be... would you financially support that organization so that the organization could support itself without risking going bankrupt?
That is all that the Church asking for money is really doing in the long run, that and asking for money so that it can provide for it's missionary outreach of course. If it did not have income of any sort, then the church would cease to exist. But I suppose that is what some people really want, for the church to not be able to financially support itself or it's missionary work.
Also, it is interesting to note, but I have heard romantic love described on many occasions as "Worshiping your lover" in fact there is a book in the Bible that draws this same analogy about the love of God for the Nation of Israel, that it is like the love of a Romantic Partner. In fact said book gets exceedingly graphic and has been heralded as a sexual manual on the same level as the Kama Sutra.
And what book is that?
The Song of Songs, also known as the Song of Solomon.
Believe me or don't, but I can honestly say that God doesn't care about our money, he cares about us helping those less fortunate than ourselves.
First off, it looks like you play STO. I don't play anymore but I'm happy people still do.
Second, I'm downright incredulous of anyone who claims to know what God wants.
The bolded part is where I'm going to focus since the rest of what you say is irrelevant (whether it's money or time it's still a sacrifice to God). I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at since most churches claim divine origin. They speak for God on Earth; therefore, because they want your money, God wants your money. Yet another debate about interpretation... wonderful.
Why are there numerous passages which demand direct sacrifices at all? What use could God have for a burnt lamb or your money? Why did sacrifices evolve from burnt offerings to money collected and spent by the church? Regardless of how the money is spent, what makes religion not a scam?
When I see evangelists on TV they're always selling something, street evangelism is akin to drug dealing as they offer you the first hit for free then make you pay to continue, and when I have gone to church (Catholic, Baptist and especially Adventist) there was always some time spent talking about tithing; the evangelical mission of the church combined with tithing seems like a money making proposition to me.
What you are articulating about suffering can be challenged with that age old classic, the problem of evil. If God is all-loving, why did He create a universe seemingly of suffering? If God is all-powerful, why does God not intervene to stop us, His special creation, from suffering? If God is all-knowing, why didn't God use this knowledge to prevent all suffering during creation?
And the most predicable response to all of this, "free will trumps God." How can creation beat out the creator? Needless to say, something is very fishy about the Bible and the God portrayed within.
The origins of sacrifice comes from the ancient belief in Pagan Religions (not Christian or Judaic ones) that you could feed the Gods. The reason that the Jews continued burnt sacrifice has more to do with the concept that the Sacrifice was to serve as a stand in for the suffering that they would have to undertake if they were not sacrificing something, due to their sin which separates them from God. Basically the Sacrifice that the Jews were performing was intended to act as a stand in for Jesus who performed the ultimate sacrifice.
You will note that the Jews no longer perform Animal Sacrifice.
As for Tithing, that serves two functions. Neither of these two functions is something that fulfills a goal that is absolutely needed by God himself. These functions are as follows:
1.) It provides a means by which to perform Charity to those less fortunate than the Church. You will notice that many churches also perform Missionary work. This Missionary work does a great deal of good in a great many locations. The fact that they also provide "The Good News" while performing this missionary work is a secondary concern. Afterall, building houses, providing medical care, and various other things to people who don't normally have access to such things is far more important than hearing "The Good News."
2.) It provides the necessary funding to finance the Church's bare minimum financial requirements. Churches may be a Non-Profit Organization, but they still have to pay Electricity Bills, Water Bills, and other Utilities. They still need to buy paper to print their bulletins. They also need to have the money necessary to pay their permanent staff members for their services rendered, as some churches do have full-time staff.
Oh and 3.) They need money to provide for the well being of the Clergy. This is especially important in the case of the Catholic Church where the Clergy is wholly dependent on the Church itself for their livelihood.
I've read that heaven is just a place where there is joy, no pain and suffering, and you are always worshiping God. But why does an omnipotent, all loving God want us to worship him? I know he wants a family, but we don't worship our parents. Isn't there a way to love Him without worshiping Him?
That version of Heaven does not do justice to what the actual state of affairs in Heaven will actually be. What that describes is not the role that human souls will have in Heaven, but rather one of the roles that the Choir of Angels currently has. It should be noted that a human soul does not become an Angel upon entering Heaven.
Angels by and large do not have Free Will, except in a few notable instances (namely the highest ranked Angels in the Angelic Court). Thus why would a human soul which has free will suddenly give up that free will upon entering Heaven? That defeats the whole purpose of God creating us in his image in the first place (i.e. creating us with free will).
Also, it is interesting to note, but I have heard romantic love described on many occasions as "Worshiping your lover" in fact there is a book in the Bible that draws this same analogy about the love of God for the Nation of Israel, that it is like the love of a Romantic Partner. In fact said book gets exceedingly graphic and has been heralded as a sexual manual on the same level as the Kama Sutra.
Well, let’s look at what it would be like if religions didn’t require worship. Keep in mind the most important thing in, say, Christianity is that you never forsake the Holy Ghost. All else can be forgiven except for not believing. This is a good rule if you intend to keep people coming into the church, and giving the church money.
Eh... actually that commandment means that you aren't allowed to Blaspheme the Name of God. Fortunately the Hebrews had a practical policy of never writing down the vowels in the name of God, and also never speaking the name aloud, so it is literally impossible to blaspheme the name of God in the modern age.
Blaspheming the words "Holy Spirit" is way too easy and something that a radical Atheist Group has rallied people to attempt to do en masse, fortunately it is not something you can actually be damned to hell for all eternity, mainly because the concept of the Holy Spirit is a purely Post-Resurrection of Jesus concept. Yes I believe there is a trinity aspect to God, but the concepts of the Holy Spirit as it has come to be indoctrinated in the modern church is not something that existed during or prior to Jesus' life. There are only vague references to the concept known as the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament at best, and even vaguer references to the concept of the Son of God made manifest. So the concept of blaspheming either of these would have been a weird concept in the first century at best. Blaspheming the true name of God however would have been something people would have intrinsically recognized immediately.
Oh and as a side note, Christians worship on Sunday because that is the day Jesus rose from the dead. Traditionally speaking however, the Sabbath Day of Rest is a combination of a Friday and a Saturday. Basically from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. Sundown because the Hebrew day starts at Sundown, not in the morning.
There is an explanation for why things happen. If the search for answers rolled over on its back every time someone said "God did it" we would still be living in caves surviving as food for micro organisms.
A Miracle can and probably should be defined as a series of events for which there is no current plausible scientific explanation. Thus at the current time it would likely be reasonable to define the story that Northprophet describes as a Miracle. At least until a plausible scientific explanation can be provided. I mean can any of you explain how a person with no cartilage in their hips from the time they were a little kid, suddenly woke up one day and had cartilage in their hips? That defies my understanding of how biology works.
As for the God of Gaps theory, that whole theory hinges upon the assumption that God never intended us to discover the methods he uses to accomplish his miracles. It could be that what science is observing is simply the method of creation and intervention that God chose to use. And that the term "Miracle" is simply an out of date term. Though I can't think of a better term for Creation. Science doesn't really do it justice seeing as how Science is not a term to describe the act of creation so much as it is a term to describe the observation and reproduction of the act of creation.
What benefit do you think God gets from these commandments? I think you have a very narrow understanding of the purpose of these commmandments.
I dont think God gets any benefit because he isn't real. However, within a literary context, I was pointing out the reason why the character of God in the bible requires worship appears to be that he is jealous and egotistical. My basis for this was in the ten commandments that he laid down to his chosen people, a significant number of these divine commandments centred around people worshipping and honouring him for being great. That sounds fairly self-centred and egotistical and more like a spoiled child than a supreme being.
Rufus, you said it yourself, the Israelites were YWHW's chosen people. He was to be their God. Now he cannot very well fulfill that role for his people if he allows them to worship other deities, now can he? That said however there are some key points in the Ten Commandments that bear scrutiny.
the First Commandment is "You shall have no other gods (Before/Besides) me." The thing about this commandment, is the word for Before or Besides can be translated as either or. If it is translated as Before, it can be taken to mean that YWHW is to be the Chief God in the Israelite Pantheon, much the way that Zeus is the chief God in the Greek Pantheon. If it is however translated as Besides it means that YWHW is to be the ONLY God in the Israelite Pantheon. This translational issue is largely where the confusion stems from. But to make matters worse, the word used for God in many places in the Old Testament is a plural term, not a singular. So the question arises, how many Gods did the early Israelites actually have?
The answer of course is that they were descended from Mesopotamians, and as such were polytheistic, not monotheistic. The God of Abraham, and thus the God of the Israelites is simply the personal God of Abraham's family, El Shaddai. El being a title used to refer to several of the Gods in the Ugaritic Religions of ancient Canaan/Mesopotamia. Shaddai probably being a personal name of said God (though that issue is subject to debate).
Also, the Bible is very clear (at least the New Testament is), you are supposed to question Religious Authority. Jesus himself did it on a regular basis, as did the Apostles. Heck, in the Old Testament the Prophets also questioned Religious Authority quite frequently as well. Though in the Prophets case the Religious Authority they were questioning usually belonged to other religions.
The bible was never meant to be read by the common man.
That's complete bull hockey. In the first century A.D. people of common birth were expected to memorize the Old Testament word for word. The entire thing, not just segments, but the whole kit and kaboodle. Even going into the future people regularly memorized the Bible due to the fact that the printing press had yet to be invented. It was not until the printing press was invented that you saw a surge of people ceasing to memorize the Bible in large swaths.
The fact of the matter is that today, people don't know the bible by wrote because of the fact that we have such easy access to the Bible. So the next time you sit there and think to yourself that the common man wasn't meant to read the Bible, you might stop and think to yourself instead that the common man used to take the time to actually memorize the Bible instead.
I'm criticizing "God says tithe 10% bro." But you're so right (and so intelligent too!), I'm bigoted because I possess an opinion that differs from yours
God in the guise of Jesus also says "Give unto Caesar what is due Caesar." In otherwords, If you tithe using Money made by the Federal Reserve, your wasting your time due to the fact that the money created by the Federal Reserve has ZERO Value other than what the Federal Reserve says its value is. Zeitgeist got a lot of stuff wrong, but it got that much right. Believe me or don't, but I can honestly say that God doesn't care about our money, he cares about us helping those less fortunate than ourselves.
Don't shank me if someone asked this already, but what I don't understand is Lucifer's relation to the whole "system". He punishes the wicked...and that somehow makes him evil? But then wouldn't God be evil, too? So how is God any better than Lucifer, and if it's "just because he created everything", well, that's certainly no merit. Just because (hyperbolic hypothetical) Jim breeds husky puppies doesn't mean he's in the right for skinning them alive and making them into steaks.
Eh... its complicated. This has been happening ever since Christianity split off from Judaism, but alot of people misinterpret Satan's role (I don't call him Lucifer because Lucifer means the Morning Star and that is actually one of Jesus' titles). Anyways, Satan was at least according to the book of Job (one of the earliest books written in the Old Testament, predating Genesis by a long shot) part of the Court of God. By this I literally mean "Court" as in a Legal system, and not the meaning that is used by a Monarch.
Satan's role in the Court of God was basically the same as a Prosecuting Lawyer's role in a modern day court. It is largely because of what he does to Job that many people see him as Evil, including the Author of Revelation I imagine. However the problem with this interpretation is that Satan had the approval of God to go ahead with the tormenting of Job. The reason he had this approval was so that God could prove Job's faithfulness to him. And it turned out God was right in the long run.
Also, it should be noted that the snake in the Garden of Eden is only identified as Satan by Christians. Neither Islam nor the Jews recognize such an identification. Islam does recognize the snake as a demon or Ifrit (I think) but thats not the same as it being Satan.
Okay, lets put it this way... scientists to the best of my knowledge currently believe the ultimate carrying capacity for humans on the planet earth is hard capped at around 12 billion people. What that means is if the planet's population ever exceeds 12 billion, that there will not be enough resources on the planet to sustain that number of people for more than a couple of years. Our planet's population is currently sitting somewhere between 6 and 7 billion. This level of population is largely maintained by the fact that deaths are usually about even with births. However if you removed all forms of death from the human species, except for dying of hunger, then the planets population cap would be reached in a manner of a few years.
And what would happen if we reached the population cap? People would die. You're saying that death is acceptable because it averts death. Think about that for a second.
No thats not what I am saying at all. I am saying that death is acceptable because it averts the extinction of the human species as a whole. Does that put things in better context for you?
If we hit the population cap its not so much that a few people would die as it is that EVERYONE would die. And quite rapidly as well.
EDIT: I mean can any of you comprehend what would happen to us as a species if Adam and Eve were real. If they were given the ability and knowledge of how to reproduce right at their creation, and if they and all their descendents were actually immortal (but not invulnerable) and they actually choose the option of obeying God instead of listening to the serpent? Eden may have been a paradise on earth, but I highly doubt it was infinite in size the way that Heaven is. In fact the dimensions of Eden are explicitly described in the Bible itself so we know that it was not infinite in size. Thus if Adam and Eve had spawned a race of immortal beings who were not violent by nature... they would overwhelm the ability of Eden to support them, despite it being a paradise.
To be flippent:
And painful debilitating diseases are what an all-knowing, all-good God came up with?
No diseases are "necessary." There are plenty of better ways to regulate the population that does not involve human suffering. Additionally, unless you think ancient humans had the resources to do all that, there would be still genrations and genrations that would get the short end of the stick no matter how good they were.
Are you God? Do you presume to tell God what is and is not a necessary condition of human life and the survival of the human species?
Okay, lets put it this way... scientists to the best of my knowledge currently believe the ultimate carrying capacity for humans on the planet earth is hard capped at around 12 billion people. What that means is if the planet's population ever exceeds 12 billion, that there will not be enough resources on the planet to sustain that number of people for more than a couple of years. Our planet's population is currently sitting somewhere between 6 and 7 billion. This level of population is largely maintained by the fact that deaths are usually about even with births. However if you removed all forms of death from the human species, except for dying of hunger, then the planets population cap would be reached in a manner of a few years.
So, why should others pay for their evil? It's inherently unjust.
You realize the story of Adam and Eve is largely a metaphor explaining the relationship of God and Human Sin right?
EDIT: And P.S. I do not believe the painful debilitating diseases are necessarily God's idea. Just because God is the creator and ultimately the one who implements things into creation, does not mean he is the one who comes up with every single idea. He may be all knowing, all powerful and all present, but that doesn't mean he is necessarily the one who comes up with the best torment. And by the way, torment is sometimes the best way to cultivate spiritual growth. Just ask Job.
Hell is defined as an eternity detached from God's presence, while Heaven is defined as an eternity in God's presence.
Except defining Hell as a place in the Cosmology of Christianity where God's presence is withheld is impossible. According to the doctrine of almost every Christian Denomination (except perhaps one or two fringe groups), God is by definition Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. The last one of those, Omnipresence, means that there cannot exist a place where his presence is withheld due to the fact that he is always present, everywhere. Thus you cannot define hell as a place where he is not. Rather hell is defined quite literally by Jesus himself, as a place of Eternal Torment. Jesus does not define it as a place without God's presence, that is a later church made and contradictory definition.
Also while I am on the subject. I define Omnipotence as the ability to do anything that is logically possible, even if it is not possible for a human to do. That is why God can create universes. Because it is logically possible for him to be able to do so. I further define Omniscience as the ability to see all possible futures, presents, and pasts branching out before him, but not to control those futures unless he takes an active role in them via one of his four other abilities (Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Incarnation, or the ability to bestow Prophecy).
All I can say to that, ColonelCoo, is I can hope that true justice is not really a system in which I need to pay for the sins of my father.
That seems inherently unfair, yet you are saying it is the height of fairness?
With the resources that currently exist on the planet at the current time, it is possible to end world hunger 100%. Similarly it is likely that somewhere on the planet there is a cure to most diseases, and the ones we can't find a cure for, are diseases that we need in place in order to maintain some level of population control so that we don't overwhelm the food supply.
The problem is that there is a large segment of society who believes it is their god given right to have more wealth, food, and medical care than the vast majority of the worlds population. As such it is unlikely that we will ever see a situation where in humankind is willing to bring about a conclusion to the suffering of their fellow man.
As far as natural disasters, old age, and other causes of suffering that food, monetary, and medical resources cannot solve... those are a necessary evil. Natural Disasters serve a necessary role in our planets functions and while they may cause devastation, it would be far worse for the planet as a whole if they did not occur. Old Age is the ultimate limiting factor on the planets population cap, and without it we would eat our food supplies out of existence causing even more starvation than currently exists, not to mention what it would do to truly non-renewable resources. There are other factors as well, but ultimately some suffering is necessary for the survival of our species as well as all the other species on the planet.
Because Adam and Eve decides to eat the apple, all of a sudden, everyone else needs to suffer because of that. Why not just have Adam and Even punished...we clearly didn't do anything wrong. This way, God wouldn't have to send Jesus Christ (himself oddly) to die on the cross and suffer. So not only are we suffering for the sins of Adam and Eve, but God himself technically suffered for the sins of Adam and Even, seriously? Did this guy not think of any other better solutions?
You um... do realize that Sin is an entity itself, as well as a behavioral concept? Sin was a Mesopotamian God, and I believe that the ancient Jews (pre-Moses period) ascribed many of the same traits to Sin that modern Christians ascribe to Satan (who ironically is technically God's right hand Angel and is the one who serves as Prosecuting Attorney in the Heavenly Court, at least according to one of the earliest books of the Old Testament to be written).
So when you say we are being punished for Adam and Eve's sin, are you saying we are being punished for their behavior? Or for their worship of an ancient Mesopotamian God? In either case it would be near treachery to the Judeo-Christian God for what Adam and Eve allegedly did. They disobeyed God's one and only (at the time) commandment, that in and of itself is treachery and worthy of being cast out of paradise. Unfortunately the Ancient Jews believed in a generational punishment system for certain transgressions, and disobeying Gods most important (only) commandment would be the biggest transgression you could accumulate worthy of the biggest punishment ever.
How can god be so powerful, so omnipotent, and loving at the same time? I mean look at this ****hole in which we live. If god is almighty then we do we suffer? If he cared enough would he not feed the starving*?
These questions are asked far too frequently in my opinion without anyone ever actually bothering to look at the issue from God's point of view instead of the human point of view. The reason God allows us to suffer, die of old age, die of starvation, be plagued by disease, and all manner of other things is simply because he understands that if he did not allow these things, the human species as a whole would destroy this planet in a single century. There are not enough renewable food resources on this planet to feed all the humans who would be born over the course of a century or longer if there was no possibility of death at all. Thus without people dying to allow resources to renew themselves, the population cap of this planet would be reached in a very short time, and then we would starve ourselves off the face of the planet and suffer a far more painful death as a species than the deaths we currently suffer on an individual basis.
My boiled down take on it: God is not a pet owner, He's a father. A pet owner puts his pet in a cage and takes perfect care of it, ensuring no harm comes to it. A father lets bad things happen to his children so they may learn and grow.
That is also a really good comparison, I like that.
As a father myself I understand letting my children learn lessons, but I would never let them starve. I would not give them terminal diseases. There is a certain point to where learning becomes a null point with struggle.
While the comparison to a human father is valid, God is the divine father so he has a different role to what we have. Additionally it is not just God and the heavenly court who plays a hand in mortal affairs. You also have the demonic realm, or rather Satan and his host. According to the book of Job, it was not God who persecuted Job throughout that entire book, but rather it was Satan himself, though God explicitly allowed Satan to persecute Job. God allowed this persecution in order to prove Job's loyalty to God. And God explicitly told Satan he could do his worst to Job. Ironically, alot of the stuff that happened to Job, is far worse than stuff that happens in the normal human beings life by comparison. If you think you have it rough, read Job.
The point being that it is generally the assumption (at least it is the assumption by most people I know) that suffering is caused by Satan, but allowed by God. And it is usually the case that suffering is allowed for the express purpose of bringing an individual closer to God.
Of course, there are instances where people choose the path that would lead them into suffering of their own free will. In which case it has absolutely nothing to do with either Satan or God that the individual in question choose that suffering.
P.S. Please note, I am reading this thread, and replying to it, from the beginning. If this does not jive with some of you, then I apologize. Feel free to ignore my replies in such case. But I am replying to this just to get my replies into the open all the same.
I have no idea how Thomas Enevoldsen managed to win with that many 3 drops in his deck. Though if he is as amazing a player as you claim, I guess that can make up for the horrible mana curve that would give him.
I was actually thinking of going with an Oracle which I believe utilizes Charisma as it's primary ability score. If only because according to a lot of people I have heard, the Life Mystery Oracle is actually a teency bit better at healing characters than an equal level Cleric.
Also there is the fact that the Heavens Mystery Oracle can be just down right annoyingly OP as a friend of mine once pointed out to me (though I am not certain I want to invest everything that is necessary in order to invest into the character to make it OP).
Okay, I am trying to design a character using the Pathfinder System for a campaign that I am part of. The character will be starting at either level 6 or 7 (probably level 6). I want to create a Divine Caster because the Campaign Setting is sorely lacking in high level Divine Spellcasters. I have already decided that the race I want to choose is probably going to be the Aasimar.
Class options for a divine spellcaster include the Cleric, Oracle, Paladin, and Inquisitor. I would prefer an Oracle or a Cleric due to the two of them being straight up Divine Casters, while the other two are partially warriors.
The Core Rulebook and Advanced Players Guide are both allowed in their entirety, certain aspects of Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic are forbidden (such as Words of Power and Spellblight). The Custom Race rules from the Advanced Race guide are out of bounds, however most of the race modifications to existing races are allowed within reason.
Any help coming up with a character would be appreciated.
As an update, I just got word that my SSI benefits are going to be restored to what they originally were, but I am going to have to wait for this until the start of June.
Except that in actuality there is currently enough resources on the planet to feed all the animals that currently are alive, as well as all of the humans that are currently alive on the planet, and to never have anyone wanting for anything. The fact of the matter is that the only reason scarcity exists is because there are people who want more than they actually need, and as such they are the limiting factor on the environment.
It is purely human Dogma and Doctrine that says that Satan's role has changed. And you are wrong, Judaism still holds that Satan is part of God's Court. It is purely a Christian Construct that Satan has become something that represents Evil in this world, not a Judaic one.
Also, only God knows what Satan's role in all of this happens to be. I am not saying that Demons/Fallen Angels don't exist... I am just saying that I doubt that they exist in the way that we were led to believe that they exist by Christian Doctrine.
I do not condone Murder. I would never be in favor of killing another human being in cold blood. What I am arguing is that the natural process of dying, or dying because of disease, or other natural causes is acceptable because it keeps the population in check.
I do not support the premeditated murder of individuals in anyway.
You are defining Omniscience too narrowly. In your definition there is only one possible path that our decisions can ever take. Thus there is only one Future. I personally however prefer to think of time as a "Timey Wimey Ball". Anyways, in my opinion God can see all possible futures and make informed guesses about what we are going to do based on that, but he doesn't necessarily know for certain what actions we are going to take until after we have taken those actions. Thus we can have free will despite his having Omniscience.
(by the way, that video makes a whole lot more sense when viewed with the other half of the conversation going along side it).
Okay, question for you. If you were part of an organization, any organization, doesn't matter what the goals and aims of that organization happens to be... would you financially support that organization so that the organization could support itself without risking going bankrupt?
That is all that the Church asking for money is really doing in the long run, that and asking for money so that it can provide for it's missionary outreach of course. If it did not have income of any sort, then the church would cease to exist. But I suppose that is what some people really want, for the church to not be able to financially support itself or it's missionary work.
The Song of Songs, also known as the Song of Solomon.
The origins of sacrifice comes from the ancient belief in Pagan Religions (not Christian or Judaic ones) that you could feed the Gods. The reason that the Jews continued burnt sacrifice has more to do with the concept that the Sacrifice was to serve as a stand in for the suffering that they would have to undertake if they were not sacrificing something, due to their sin which separates them from God. Basically the Sacrifice that the Jews were performing was intended to act as a stand in for Jesus who performed the ultimate sacrifice.
You will note that the Jews no longer perform Animal Sacrifice.
As for Tithing, that serves two functions. Neither of these two functions is something that fulfills a goal that is absolutely needed by God himself. These functions are as follows:
1.) It provides a means by which to perform Charity to those less fortunate than the Church. You will notice that many churches also perform Missionary work. This Missionary work does a great deal of good in a great many locations. The fact that they also provide "The Good News" while performing this missionary work is a secondary concern. Afterall, building houses, providing medical care, and various other things to people who don't normally have access to such things is far more important than hearing "The Good News."
2.) It provides the necessary funding to finance the Church's bare minimum financial requirements. Churches may be a Non-Profit Organization, but they still have to pay Electricity Bills, Water Bills, and other Utilities. They still need to buy paper to print their bulletins. They also need to have the money necessary to pay their permanent staff members for their services rendered, as some churches do have full-time staff.
Oh and 3.) They need money to provide for the well being of the Clergy. This is especially important in the case of the Catholic Church where the Clergy is wholly dependent on the Church itself for their livelihood.
That version of Heaven does not do justice to what the actual state of affairs in Heaven will actually be. What that describes is not the role that human souls will have in Heaven, but rather one of the roles that the Choir of Angels currently has. It should be noted that a human soul does not become an Angel upon entering Heaven.
Angels by and large do not have Free Will, except in a few notable instances (namely the highest ranked Angels in the Angelic Court). Thus why would a human soul which has free will suddenly give up that free will upon entering Heaven? That defeats the whole purpose of God creating us in his image in the first place (i.e. creating us with free will).
Also, it is interesting to note, but I have heard romantic love described on many occasions as "Worshiping your lover" in fact there is a book in the Bible that draws this same analogy about the love of God for the Nation of Israel, that it is like the love of a Romantic Partner. In fact said book gets exceedingly graphic and has been heralded as a sexual manual on the same level as the Kama Sutra.
Eh... actually that commandment means that you aren't allowed to Blaspheme the Name of God. Fortunately the Hebrews had a practical policy of never writing down the vowels in the name of God, and also never speaking the name aloud, so it is literally impossible to blaspheme the name of God in the modern age.
Blaspheming the words "Holy Spirit" is way too easy and something that a radical Atheist Group has rallied people to attempt to do en masse, fortunately it is not something you can actually be damned to hell for all eternity, mainly because the concept of the Holy Spirit is a purely Post-Resurrection of Jesus concept. Yes I believe there is a trinity aspect to God, but the concepts of the Holy Spirit as it has come to be indoctrinated in the modern church is not something that existed during or prior to Jesus' life. There are only vague references to the concept known as the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament at best, and even vaguer references to the concept of the Son of God made manifest. So the concept of blaspheming either of these would have been a weird concept in the first century at best. Blaspheming the true name of God however would have been something people would have intrinsically recognized immediately.
Oh and as a side note, Christians worship on Sunday because that is the day Jesus rose from the dead. Traditionally speaking however, the Sabbath Day of Rest is a combination of a Friday and a Saturday. Basically from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. Sundown because the Hebrew day starts at Sundown, not in the morning.
A Miracle can and probably should be defined as a series of events for which there is no current plausible scientific explanation. Thus at the current time it would likely be reasonable to define the story that Northprophet describes as a Miracle. At least until a plausible scientific explanation can be provided. I mean can any of you explain how a person with no cartilage in their hips from the time they were a little kid, suddenly woke up one day and had cartilage in their hips? That defies my understanding of how biology works.
As for the God of Gaps theory, that whole theory hinges upon the assumption that God never intended us to discover the methods he uses to accomplish his miracles. It could be that what science is observing is simply the method of creation and intervention that God chose to use. And that the term "Miracle" is simply an out of date term. Though I can't think of a better term for Creation. Science doesn't really do it justice seeing as how Science is not a term to describe the act of creation so much as it is a term to describe the observation and reproduction of the act of creation.
Rufus, you said it yourself, the Israelites were YWHW's chosen people. He was to be their God. Now he cannot very well fulfill that role for his people if he allows them to worship other deities, now can he? That said however there are some key points in the Ten Commandments that bear scrutiny.
the First Commandment is "You shall have no other gods (Before/Besides) me." The thing about this commandment, is the word for Before or Besides can be translated as either or. If it is translated as Before, it can be taken to mean that YWHW is to be the Chief God in the Israelite Pantheon, much the way that Zeus is the chief God in the Greek Pantheon. If it is however translated as Besides it means that YWHW is to be the ONLY God in the Israelite Pantheon. This translational issue is largely where the confusion stems from. But to make matters worse, the word used for God in many places in the Old Testament is a plural term, not a singular. So the question arises, how many Gods did the early Israelites actually have?
The answer of course is that they were descended from Mesopotamians, and as such were polytheistic, not monotheistic. The God of Abraham, and thus the God of the Israelites is simply the personal God of Abraham's family, El Shaddai. El being a title used to refer to several of the Gods in the Ugaritic Religions of ancient Canaan/Mesopotamia. Shaddai probably being a personal name of said God (though that issue is subject to debate).
Also, the Bible is very clear (at least the New Testament is), you are supposed to question Religious Authority. Jesus himself did it on a regular basis, as did the Apostles. Heck, in the Old Testament the Prophets also questioned Religious Authority quite frequently as well. Though in the Prophets case the Religious Authority they were questioning usually belonged to other religions.
That's complete bull hockey. In the first century A.D. people of common birth were expected to memorize the Old Testament word for word. The entire thing, not just segments, but the whole kit and kaboodle. Even going into the future people regularly memorized the Bible due to the fact that the printing press had yet to be invented. It was not until the printing press was invented that you saw a surge of people ceasing to memorize the Bible in large swaths.
The fact of the matter is that today, people don't know the bible by wrote because of the fact that we have such easy access to the Bible. So the next time you sit there and think to yourself that the common man wasn't meant to read the Bible, you might stop and think to yourself instead that the common man used to take the time to actually memorize the Bible instead.
God in the guise of Jesus also says "Give unto Caesar what is due Caesar." In otherwords, If you tithe using Money made by the Federal Reserve, your wasting your time due to the fact that the money created by the Federal Reserve has ZERO Value other than what the Federal Reserve says its value is. Zeitgeist got a lot of stuff wrong, but it got that much right. Believe me or don't, but I can honestly say that God doesn't care about our money, he cares about us helping those less fortunate than ourselves.
Eh... its complicated. This has been happening ever since Christianity split off from Judaism, but alot of people misinterpret Satan's role (I don't call him Lucifer because Lucifer means the Morning Star and that is actually one of Jesus' titles). Anyways, Satan was at least according to the book of Job (one of the earliest books written in the Old Testament, predating Genesis by a long shot) part of the Court of God. By this I literally mean "Court" as in a Legal system, and not the meaning that is used by a Monarch.
Satan's role in the Court of God was basically the same as a Prosecuting Lawyer's role in a modern day court. It is largely because of what he does to Job that many people see him as Evil, including the Author of Revelation I imagine. However the problem with this interpretation is that Satan had the approval of God to go ahead with the tormenting of Job. The reason he had this approval was so that God could prove Job's faithfulness to him. And it turned out God was right in the long run.
Also, it should be noted that the snake in the Garden of Eden is only identified as Satan by Christians. Neither Islam nor the Jews recognize such an identification. Islam does recognize the snake as a demon or Ifrit (I think) but thats not the same as it being Satan.
No thats not what I am saying at all. I am saying that death is acceptable because it averts the extinction of the human species as a whole. Does that put things in better context for you?
If we hit the population cap its not so much that a few people would die as it is that EVERYONE would die. And quite rapidly as well.
EDIT: I mean can any of you comprehend what would happen to us as a species if Adam and Eve were real. If they were given the ability and knowledge of how to reproduce right at their creation, and if they and all their descendents were actually immortal (but not invulnerable) and they actually choose the option of obeying God instead of listening to the serpent? Eden may have been a paradise on earth, but I highly doubt it was infinite in size the way that Heaven is. In fact the dimensions of Eden are explicitly described in the Bible itself so we know that it was not infinite in size. Thus if Adam and Eve had spawned a race of immortal beings who were not violent by nature... they would overwhelm the ability of Eden to support them, despite it being a paradise.
Are you God? Do you presume to tell God what is and is not a necessary condition of human life and the survival of the human species?
Okay, lets put it this way... scientists to the best of my knowledge currently believe the ultimate carrying capacity for humans on the planet earth is hard capped at around 12 billion people. What that means is if the planet's population ever exceeds 12 billion, that there will not be enough resources on the planet to sustain that number of people for more than a couple of years. Our planet's population is currently sitting somewhere between 6 and 7 billion. This level of population is largely maintained by the fact that deaths are usually about even with births. However if you removed all forms of death from the human species, except for dying of hunger, then the planets population cap would be reached in a manner of a few years.
You realize the story of Adam and Eve is largely a metaphor explaining the relationship of God and Human Sin right?
EDIT: And P.S. I do not believe the painful debilitating diseases are necessarily God's idea. Just because God is the creator and ultimately the one who implements things into creation, does not mean he is the one who comes up with every single idea. He may be all knowing, all powerful and all present, but that doesn't mean he is necessarily the one who comes up with the best torment. And by the way, torment is sometimes the best way to cultivate spiritual growth. Just ask Job.
Except defining Hell as a place in the Cosmology of Christianity where God's presence is withheld is impossible. According to the doctrine of almost every Christian Denomination (except perhaps one or two fringe groups), God is by definition Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. The last one of those, Omnipresence, means that there cannot exist a place where his presence is withheld due to the fact that he is always present, everywhere. Thus you cannot define hell as a place where he is not. Rather hell is defined quite literally by Jesus himself, as a place of Eternal Torment. Jesus does not define it as a place without God's presence, that is a later church made and contradictory definition.
Also while I am on the subject. I define Omnipotence as the ability to do anything that is logically possible, even if it is not possible for a human to do. That is why God can create universes. Because it is logically possible for him to be able to do so. I further define Omniscience as the ability to see all possible futures, presents, and pasts branching out before him, but not to control those futures unless he takes an active role in them via one of his four other abilities (Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Incarnation, or the ability to bestow Prophecy).
With the resources that currently exist on the planet at the current time, it is possible to end world hunger 100%. Similarly it is likely that somewhere on the planet there is a cure to most diseases, and the ones we can't find a cure for, are diseases that we need in place in order to maintain some level of population control so that we don't overwhelm the food supply.
The problem is that there is a large segment of society who believes it is their god given right to have more wealth, food, and medical care than the vast majority of the worlds population. As such it is unlikely that we will ever see a situation where in humankind is willing to bring about a conclusion to the suffering of their fellow man.
As far as natural disasters, old age, and other causes of suffering that food, monetary, and medical resources cannot solve... those are a necessary evil. Natural Disasters serve a necessary role in our planets functions and while they may cause devastation, it would be far worse for the planet as a whole if they did not occur. Old Age is the ultimate limiting factor on the planets population cap, and without it we would eat our food supplies out of existence causing even more starvation than currently exists, not to mention what it would do to truly non-renewable resources. There are other factors as well, but ultimately some suffering is necessary for the survival of our species as well as all the other species on the planet.
You um... do realize that Sin is an entity itself, as well as a behavioral concept? Sin was a Mesopotamian God, and I believe that the ancient Jews (pre-Moses period) ascribed many of the same traits to Sin that modern Christians ascribe to Satan (who ironically is technically God's right hand Angel and is the one who serves as Prosecuting Attorney in the Heavenly Court, at least according to one of the earliest books of the Old Testament to be written).
So when you say we are being punished for Adam and Eve's sin, are you saying we are being punished for their behavior? Or for their worship of an ancient Mesopotamian God? In either case it would be near treachery to the Judeo-Christian God for what Adam and Eve allegedly did. They disobeyed God's one and only (at the time) commandment, that in and of itself is treachery and worthy of being cast out of paradise. Unfortunately the Ancient Jews believed in a generational punishment system for certain transgressions, and disobeying Gods most important (only) commandment would be the biggest transgression you could accumulate worthy of the biggest punishment ever.
These questions are asked far too frequently in my opinion without anyone ever actually bothering to look at the issue from God's point of view instead of the human point of view. The reason God allows us to suffer, die of old age, die of starvation, be plagued by disease, and all manner of other things is simply because he understands that if he did not allow these things, the human species as a whole would destroy this planet in a single century. There are not enough renewable food resources on this planet to feed all the humans who would be born over the course of a century or longer if there was no possibility of death at all. Thus without people dying to allow resources to renew themselves, the population cap of this planet would be reached in a very short time, and then we would starve ourselves off the face of the planet and suffer a far more painful death as a species than the deaths we currently suffer on an individual basis.
That is also a really good comparison, I like that.
While the comparison to a human father is valid, God is the divine father so he has a different role to what we have. Additionally it is not just God and the heavenly court who plays a hand in mortal affairs. You also have the demonic realm, or rather Satan and his host. According to the book of Job, it was not God who persecuted Job throughout that entire book, but rather it was Satan himself, though God explicitly allowed Satan to persecute Job. God allowed this persecution in order to prove Job's loyalty to God. And God explicitly told Satan he could do his worst to Job. Ironically, alot of the stuff that happened to Job, is far worse than stuff that happens in the normal human beings life by comparison. If you think you have it rough, read Job.
The point being that it is generally the assumption (at least it is the assumption by most people I know) that suffering is caused by Satan, but allowed by God. And it is usually the case that suffering is allowed for the express purpose of bringing an individual closer to God.
Of course, there are instances where people choose the path that would lead them into suffering of their own free will. In which case it has absolutely nothing to do with either Satan or God that the individual in question choose that suffering.
P.S. Please note, I am reading this thread, and replying to it, from the beginning. If this does not jive with some of you, then I apologize. Feel free to ignore my replies in such case. But I am replying to this just to get my replies into the open all the same.
Also there is the fact that the Heavens Mystery Oracle can be just down right annoyingly OP as a friend of mine once pointed out to me (though I am not certain I want to invest everything that is necessary in order to invest into the character to make it OP).
with 20 points to purchase. Ability scores can't be dropped below 7 or raised above 18 prior to racial bonuses.
Also, that website has the rules to pretty much every book in the game, even some fan made stuff on it.
Class options for a divine spellcaster include the Cleric, Oracle, Paladin, and Inquisitor. I would prefer an Oracle or a Cleric due to the two of them being straight up Divine Casters, while the other two are partially warriors.
The Core Rulebook and Advanced Players Guide are both allowed in their entirety, certain aspects of Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic are forbidden (such as Words of Power and Spellblight). The Custom Race rules from the Advanced Race guide are out of bounds, however most of the race modifications to existing races are allowed within reason.
Any help coming up with a character would be appreciated.