tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post5528440446423462474..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Schizophrenia Candidate Genes Affect Even Healthy IndividualsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75873480489541425242007-10-10T00:15:00.000-04:002007-10-10T00:15:00.000-04:00Hi rich,you are one of my favorite commenters.anyw...Hi rich,<BR/>you are one of my favorite commenters.<BR/><BR/>anyway, I still think the bible better supports my assertion that there is no salvation for those that don't repent or know god, and if there are verses that are apparently contradictory, then it is evidence that there is no divinity about the bible.<BR/><BR/>I bowed out of the convo because you and joseph were debating scriptural interpretations. My point was that we were made without sufficient means to handle moral questions that will get us 'separated from god' for eternity and that there are biological mechanisms built into us that increase the likelihood that we will 'sin' by overwhelming our 'freewill'. I'll continue to post research that supports this assertion.<BR/><BR/>I guess I'll see you on another thread.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76429470525547049112007-10-09T14:22:00.000-04:002007-10-09T14:22:00.000-04:00Likewise Joseph and I'll mix it up elsewhereLikewise Joseph and I'll mix it up elsewhereRichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53137892005235645502007-10-09T14:21:00.000-04:002007-10-09T14:21:00.000-04:00Sorry Lee I should have mentioned that the 14 year...Sorry Lee I should have mentioned that the 14 year old is the older sister, not my handicapped child. I do appreciate the sentiment, very thoughtful. <BR/><BR/>I know it may not seem like it to you because I do bring her up here at times, but I do feel pretty secure with what I believe about those in her state. For purposes here I usually like to see the back peddling people do when they say they're lost, you know what I mean;) It's a matter of interest to me see what the bible might say for example about such things. I don't think that everything is answered in the bible, so I don't consume myself in such chases, but I always look. Anyway, I don't pack emotional baggage around from her because of my religion.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for another good chat!Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91592551065468636252007-10-09T13:46:00.000-04:002007-10-09T13:46:00.000-04:00Rich, thank you for engaging in a thoughtful and r...Rich, thank you for engaging in a thoughtful and respectful debate. I've enjoyed it very much. Hopefully we can pick up strands of this conversation in a future post! I've got my hands so full right now that I'm going to have to say goodbye to this particular one for now.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23985469069947208992007-10-09T11:06:00.000-04:002007-10-09T11:06:00.000-04:00Hi rich,The interesting thing here is that I was a...Hi rich,<BR/><B><I>The interesting thing here is that I was already looking to come up with what happens to mentally disabled people because of my 14 year old coming home from school with the question.</B></I><BR/>I would really like to convince you that this is one piece of emotional baggage that you don't have to carry. I wish I could convince you that you can be at peace and at ease over this topic. This is one reason why I hate religion. Because it TAKES AWAY FROM PEACE OF MIND.<BR/><BR/>IT COMPOUNDS SUFFERING.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91357379573500808092007-10-09T05:52:00.000-04:002007-10-09T05:52:00.000-04:00The interesting thing here is that I was already l...The interesting thing here is that I was already looking to come up with what happens to mentally disabled people because of my 14 year old coming home from school with the question. So along with the other articles Lee has written already had me searching for an answer. The bible doesn't seem to offer much help. The Romans verse is a stretch at best, and I'm like you, just not real sure which is why I threw it out to the critics to see how it is responded to. As far as being damning to me, not really as much as you first think. Yes it does say perish, but look further and it says perish without the law, and those that perish without the law are not judged by the law. Only those that are given the law are judged by the law. I think this actually includes a few sets of people, infants, mentally disabled, and people who never get to hear of Christ. Would you agree?<BR/>So enter Peter about teaching to spirits in prison. If these same set end up in this place called prison, then they apparently get the opportunity to here of Christ and choose to follow him or not. I'm not trying to say this IS the solution to anything, but a possible solution to some problems. Also keep in mind that this is, as you say, trying to reconcile beliefs with what is written in the bible.<BR/><BR/>I didn't think you were Calvanist, but just noticing that is where this kind of heads. We are not agents of choice but make choices that we can't control. I do agree that we make some choices outside our control, but I also believe we make plenty within our control. Those with mental disabilities make all choices outside their control. So for me for God to be Just he can't condemn them for something that is outside their control. Since we don't have much to go on for an answer, it makes a tough debate, especially for me.<BR/><BR/>Now back to translation. I don't think we are completely accurate with bible translations. I think it has passed through so many hands that some things have probably been forgotten, left out, or a few words change that make minor differences. Since you have a good concept of what I mean by translating meaning, you're right also to say that this isn't an idiom, I'll add to my point. I just used idioms because the are the most easily recognized examples of translating a meaning over words. While I think that most likely the words are fine the way the are, I don't believe it was to suggest that God will keep some from repenting. I think we are all granted repentance, those that are capable of sin.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34966803829149140972007-10-06T23:04:00.000-04:002007-10-06T23:04:00.000-04:00Rich, I think this discussion is helping us both t...Rich, I think this discussion is helping us both to understand each other better and at the same time fine-tune our arguments. <BR/><BR/>I want you to know, first of all, that when I was a Christian I held the Arminian view quite strongly, so please don't think that the intention of my previous comments were to prove or disprove Calvinism.<BR/><BR/>You asked, "So which is right then, that God wants all to repent, as in Peter, or decides who gets to repent, as in Timothy? Whats more consistant with Gospel teaching?" To which I respond: why do we have to choose between Peter and Timothy? As a Christian, I sought to harmonize problematic Scriptures. Now it is apparent to me that the Bible contains many competing ideas that cannot be fully reconciled. This may, in fact, be one of those instances. <BR/><BR/>Rich: "Isn't the basic gospel messsage to ask ALL to repent and be babtized?" Yes, and that brings us full circle to the problem that Lee and I have with this concept. Namely, that folks with mental/psychological and brain disorders sin, but cannot fully comprehend the gravity of their sin, so they cannot repent and receive Jesus. <BR/><BR/>"How rediculous to tell us we have need of repentance if we have to be 'chosen' for repentance. Why not just leave it at predestination?"<BR/><BR/>Even though I have never been a big fan of predestination, I will attempt to answer on behalf of the Calvinist: "We would preach repentance anyway, because it's God's will for that message to be preached. Besides, preaching repentance may in fact be the predetermined means of bringing the elect into the kingdom of God." <BR/><BR/>Rich: "So why then talk about translation? H ve you ever stopped to think about the sayings we use in the engish language? I speak fluent spanish and I can tell you how hard it is to translate Back and forth because of common phrases."<BR/><BR/>I took a couple years of Spanish in college and also tutored Japanese exchange students, so I well understand the problems with English idioms. I also know from my pastoral studies that Hebrew and Greek have their own unique phrases. I don't believe the 2 Timothy 2:25 is a valid example of this at all. Nor do I think that you really mean to suggest that we have inaccurate translations of the Bible. <BR/><BR/>Rich: "My point is that translating words and meaning are two different animals." Agreed. So please tell me how you interpret the meaning of the phrase, "if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth." <BR/><BR/>Rich: "So one scripture that says God grants some repentance, is more right than many that say all can repent?" Oh, there are several others. Here's one: "Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, IF POSSIBLE, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you." Does this imply that a person can repent and pray for forgiveness, yet be turned away by God? Or how about Jesus' statement in John 6:44: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." Again, why wouldn't God enable EVERY person with mental/psychological problems to be "drawn unto him"? It seems only fair, since they're not exactly on a level playing field with those who do understand the gravity of their sin.<BR/><BR/>Rich: "Without a lot of looking I come accrossed Romans 2:12. Is there a chance that those without law could contain mental disorders?" I don't know, perhaps. However, this Scripture sounds pretty damning to your point of view. It says those who are without the law will do what without the law? Perish! <BR/><BR/>Rich: "1 Pet 3:12. What is spirit prison? How does this fit with heaven/hell? Sounds like a different place. And why preach to those who are eternally lost?"<BR/><BR/>The 1 Peter 3:8-22 is an intriguing passage which has presented commentators with great difficulty interpreting. It's been a while since I've looked at it. If you want to bring it into your argument, perhaps you could develop the thought a little further--especially as it applies to the population group we're discussing here.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-63354537016674021452007-10-06T21:32:00.000-04:002007-10-06T21:32:00.000-04:00I figured you'd go there with the translation thin...I figured you'd go there with the translation thing so here's my question to you. I pointed out to you the obvious contradiction between the two scriptures you used on purpose. So which is right then, that God wants all to repent, as in Peter, or decides who gets to repent, as in Timothy? Whats more consistant with Gospel teaching? Isn't the basic gospel messsage to ask ALL to repent and be babtized? So, for me I think it highly likely that God wants ALL to repent, not only those He choses. How rediculous to tell us we have need of repentance if we have to be "chosen" for repentance. Why not just leave it at predestination? I find alot more evidence to support my theology that all can repent then God chooses those who can repent. So why then talk about translation? H ve you ever stopped to think about the sayings we use in the engish language? I speak fluent spanish and I can tell you how hard it is to translate Back and forth because of common phrases. How about "pretty ugly"? Is it Pretty or ugly? Of coarse you know, but how will that look to one who doesn't speak our language? "God willing"? Used all the time. God willing I'll repent, God willing I'll read the bible, God willing I'll pray. Based on your knowledge of the gospel, does this mean God decides who prays, goes to church, reads the bible, ect...? Hasn't God already willed all that stuff? Hasn't God already willed all to repentance? Needless to say I feel confident that I'm right about this. I never said the translation was wrong, in fact it's most likely right. My point is that translating words and meaning are two different animals.<BR/><BR/>"If I remember right, in my first article on messianic prophecy,..... Now they can't all be wrong."<BR/><BR/>This was a lot to go through realizing I was misunderstood. Once again so we're not missing my point, no "special pleading" needed, translation fine, how does the meaning fit into bible taught gospel? So one scripture that says God grants some repentance, is more right than many that say all can repent?<BR/><BR/>1-3 points agreed. 4 If you include all people. 5 agreed. 6 Is the big problem here isn't it.<BR/>Without a lot of looking I come accrossed Romans 2:12. Is there a chance that those without law could contain mental disorders? 7 only follows if those unable to understand sin end up in hell. just to through another wrench in the works, 1Pet 3:12. What is spirit prison? How does this fit with heaven/hell? Sounds like a different place. And why preach to those who are eternally lost?Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53458408491091974262007-10-05T23:44:00.000-04:002007-10-05T23:44:00.000-04:00Rich said: "And what exactly is wrong woth requiri...Rich said: "And what exactly is wrong woth requiring repentance? We make mistakes and that gives us a way to erase them so to speak, and move on."<BR/><BR/>You kind of missed the point of my argument. I was not objecting to repentance as a concept, but to the requirement of repentance for those who are mentally disabled and psychologically disturbed. If you say there is none for them, show me where in the Bible you draw that line of thinking from? As I've been saying all alone, a sin is a sin is a sin. And according to the Bible all sin must be repented of or punished eternally. <BR/><BR/>Rich (responding to 2 Timothy 2:25-26): "Well, I suppose you could read that way and it doesn't seem far off. I always have trouble with translation because it is practically impossible to translate meaning."<BR/><BR/>If I remember right, in my first article on messianic prophecy, whenever my arguments hit a little close to home you would do a bit of special pleading like this. The Scripture is plain when you want it to be, isn't it? But when Scripture is equally plain about ideas that don't quite fit into your theological construct, you say we can't really be sure of what it means, that our translation is unclear. Why is that? And how do you determine when a Scripture is translated correctly? When it agrees with your theology or when the English words best pair with the Greek? When should a Scripture be taken at face value and when should it be considered open to interpretation? You need to come clean about your hermeneutic before you start heading down the "we can't be sure of what it really means" rabbit trail.<BR/><BR/>Here are a couple of other translations of 2 Timothy 2:25-26:<BR/><BR/>NIV: "Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, IN THE HOPE THAT GOD WILL GRANT THEM REPENTANCE LEADING TO A KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.<BR/><BR/>NASV: "With gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, IF PERHAPS GOD MAY GRANT THEM REPENTANCE LEADING TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will." <BR/><BR/>NLT: "Gently instruct those who oppose the truth. PERHAPS GOD WILL CHANGE THOSE PEOPLE'S HEARTS, and they will learn the truth. Then they will come to their senses and escape from the devil’s trap. For they have been held captive by him to do whatever he wants."<BR/><BR/>NKJV: "In humility correcting those who are in opposition, IF GOD PERHAPS WILL GRANT THEM REPENTANCE, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will."<BR/><BR/>Now they can't all be wrong. There's not a single translation that diverted from the emphasized thought. It appears that our poor souls are caught in a tug of war between the devil and God. So why does God have such a hard time winning, if he's the one who can ultimately gives/grants the act of repentance? Why would he leave any of us at the mercy of the devil ("having been taken captive to do his will" doesn't sound like a free-will choice to me!).<BR/><BR/>So in summary, here's my argument:<BR/><BR/>1. All have sinned, hence all are sinners. <BR/><BR/>2. Those who aren't saved are eternally lost.<BR/><BR/>3. According to the Bible, repentance (confessing and turning away from sin) is necessary for a sinner to receive salvation.<BR/><BR/>4. God gives/grants people the privilege (and presumably the desire) to repent of their sins. <BR/><BR/>5. Some people are unable to repent of sin because they do not fully comprehend what sin is due to mental/psychological problems (i.e. psychopaths, schizophrenics). <BR/><BR/>6. Therefore, it is evident that God has not chosen to give them the gift of repentance, implying that he has created them for the sole purpose of a miserable life and an eternally miserable afterlife.<BR/><BR/>7. This is inherently cruel and unjust. <BR/><BR/>You say that you "conclude differently" and that the atonement "takes care of every problem imaginable, from mental disorders to age." But where is your biblical justification for that conclusion? How do you answer these seven points?Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67823426907135188402007-10-05T22:52:00.000-04:002007-10-05T22:52:00.000-04:00"Hi Rich,did you ever wonder how anyone knew about..."Hi Rich,<BR/>did you ever wonder how anyone knew about the episode in the garden if Jesus was alone and the disciples were sleeping?"<BR/><BR/>Not since Jesus was the one there actually no.<BR/><BR/>You're right Lee, there is alot going against us, but does that make it impossible? People overcome great odds all the time. Why should it be easy? Why should we be handed something we didn't work for? Everyone would like it to be easier, even Christ in the gardin asked that the cup pass over him. He knew it couldn't be and he went through with it even though he asked not to, and he left it up to the Fathers will. A little less suffereing would sure be nice, making it easier to do what is right would be nice, but neither are our reality, so we accept it and do our best, that's all were asked.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50780575623569896622007-10-05T22:32:00.000-04:002007-10-05T22:32:00.000-04:00"As I understand it, God "is not willing that any ..."As I understand it, God "is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to REPENTANCE" (2 Pet 3:9)." <BR/><BR/>Which should tell you that God would have us all back if we would repent, once again up to us.<BR/><BR/>"Were it not for that sticky repentance requirement, the obvious solution to this problem would be universalism."<BR/><BR/>And what exactly is wrong woth requiring repentance? We make mistakes and that gives us a way to erase them so to speak, and move on. The only catch there is not repeating the sin.<BR/><BR/>"By the way, what do you think of 2 Timothy 2:25-26? "Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that GOD WILL GRANT THEM REPENTANCE leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will."<BR/><BR/>Well, I suppose you could read that way and it doesn't seem far off. I always have trouble with translation because it is practically impossible to translate meaning. That God would "grant repentance" doesn't really make sense to me when you consider he "would that all would come to repentance". Doesn't that mean he should grant repentance to everyone? I ran into a lot of people that I would ask if they were coming to church on sunday. Almost all would respond, "God willing". My problem with that was always, why wouldn't God be willing, those are His rules not mine? So is this a similar saying?<BR/><BR/>"It sounds like God cannot save anyone until they first repent"<BR/>no he can't<BR/><BR/>"but they can't repent until he lets them"<BR/>Isn't consistant enough for me<BR/><BR/>"Yet he doesn't do that. Why? Why not? It sounds like we're backed into either a Calvinist position (God creates some for destruction) or an atheist position (the atonement is a logically inconsistent, self-defeating doctrine)."<BR/><BR/>I conclude differently, because as complex is our world, so is the atonment. It's not at all self defeating, it takes care of every problem imaginable, from mental disorders to age.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4943411450826875352007-10-03T23:29:00.000-04:002007-10-03T23:29:00.000-04:00Hi Rich,did you ever wonder how anyone knew about ...Hi Rich,<BR/>did you ever wonder how anyone knew about the episode in the garden if Jesus was alone and the disciples were sleeping?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39770432203891159162007-10-03T23:27:00.000-04:002007-10-03T23:27:00.000-04:00Bravo Joseph,the atonement is logically inconsitan...Bravo Joseph,<BR/>the atonement is logically inconsitant, you and i recognize that but other people do their best to wiggle an inference they can live with out of it. <BR/> <BR/>Hi all,<BR/>That is the whole point of my attempt to collect EVIDENCE, scientific data that undermines whatever inference they come up with. The human is built to sin. Its not that we have the choice, it is that we are compelled by biological factors in our make up to 'sin'. This is our nature, and by inference god made us that way. Its not that god made us with the even odds of making the right moral choice, it is that once we have made the wrong choice we like it and want to it again. Its true that in some instances we like the right choice and want to do that again, but in the case of the nympho, or the alcoholic, or person that grows up abused and so carries on abusing because they are more comfortable in that type of environment, it self-perpetuates, it feeds back into itself to ensure its survival! That is sabotage.<BR/>Helping an old lady across the street doesn't fit in our brains receptors as well as the result of drinking that jack and coke.<BR/><BR/>I could even go so far as to say, with plenty of evidence to be comfortable in doing so, that the problem of evil, the atonement and the problem of sin are compelling evidence for an evil god.<BR/><BR/>The only way out of this is to conclude that both good and evil god hypothesis are wrong given that chance would logically produce these results. Thus chance accounts for both situations and must be the better hypothesis.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49900173856531964312007-10-03T23:17:00.000-04:002007-10-03T23:17:00.000-04:00Hi Rich,I don't see how that analogy is similar en...Hi Rich,<BR/>I don't see how that analogy is similar enough. You haven't accounted for the degrees of handicap. In my analogy, I said the reward goes to the player that overcomes the impediment the best, but thats not relevant to my criticism of your analogy. In your analogy, you are assuming that the task god gives you will improve you, or make you better than you were before you started. Here is some evidence to the contrary that I was saving for anther post.<BR/>In this <A HREF="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070918115543.htm" REL="nofollow">study</A> they determined that "caregivers" (people taking care of the helpless) suffer genetic deterioration at the molecular level due to stress. Stress causes the onset of mental disorders as well. So to your analogy, I would say that after pushing on that rock for so long and getting stressed over it, you body has taken some damage, which I will say decreases the value of whatever you have gained carrying out the task. Especially if it pushes you into depression.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52564694747739069752007-10-03T19:57:00.000-04:002007-10-03T19:57:00.000-04:00Rich, that's not exactly the Biblical doctrine of ...Rich, that's not exactly the Biblical doctrine of atonement. As I understand it, God "is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to REPENTANCE" (2 Pet 3:9). Were it not for that sticky repentance requirement, the obvious solution to this problem would be universalism. <BR/><BR/>By the way, what do you think of 2 Timothy 2:25-26? "Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that GOD WILL GRANT THEM REPENTANCE leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will."<BR/><BR/>It sounds like God cannot save anyone until they first repent, but they can't repent until he lets them--meaning he would first have to "cure" people mental illness or brain disorders before they could understand their sin and, hence, repent. Yet he doesn't do that. Why? Why not? It sounds like we're backed into either a Calvinist position (God creates some for destruction) or an atheist position (the atonement is a logically inconsistent, self-defeating doctrine).Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-30345445671408966602007-10-03T18:36:00.000-04:002007-10-03T18:36:00.000-04:00Joseph asks,"That's a really good point and one wh...Joseph asks,<BR/>"That's a really good point and one which I'd like to build on. If it is true that a person is "unable to understand sin" (yet he still commits sin), how is it that God can judge him guilty?"<BR/><BR/>He can't if he is just. Since Shygetz brings up a good point about the OT and God dishing out punishment, I should clarify that I am talking specifically abount the final judgment that is to come after our death, which is to decide our eternal fate.<BR/><BR/>"...The only other basis I can think of (theoretically speaking) would be for God to say to himself, "You know, I'm really the one responsible here for making this guy the way he is. Maybe I should take the fall for this one and let him into heaven." I certainly don't see any Biblical precedent for this, do you?"<BR/><BR/>Yes, your onto it, it's what we call the atonment. The price of every sin was paid for by Christ and this was the gardin of gethsemane when it made Christ bleed from every pore. I can't see anywhere that this is treated in the bible either. I haven't given up totally yet, but almost.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4314604970188289612007-10-03T14:57:00.000-04:002007-10-03T14:57:00.000-04:00OK, I start with Lee. I hate trying to do analogie...OK, I start with Lee. I hate trying to do analogies because they are difficult to make really good. Yours was decent enough to use so here goes.<BR/><BR/>First I assume that the purpose of winning was meant to be equal with getting to heaven. While that works pretty good I think I would add that even moreso it's purpose is to learn to play your best game possible given what you have. If someone can overcome their impediments and succeed will be put an the allstar team with no impediments. My allstar team would consist of those who will make the best with what their dealt beecause it shows strength of character, and that their willing to play by the rules regardless. Likewise I don't want those who would do the opposite. I already know that if you perfect, without impediment, you're stellar.<BR/><BR/>" The player would do better and be happier if the player could play as he/she wished."<BR/><BR/>Agreed, but the question is does the player know what happier can really be? The player in this case is only looking at the game at hand, and looking for short term pleasure, not long term happiness.<BR/><BR/>"There really is no point in sabotaging the game like that. The quality of the game, and the quality of play, and the quality of learning would improve if they were not hindered in that way."<BR/><BR/>I agree here mostly, except a qualifier of reasons that we know. I'll try the dreaded analogy now. A certain person prays to gain strength. God tells him, see that boulder? Bob says yes he does. God says I want you to push on that boulder every day. Bob agrees and begins pushing. After several weeks he hasn't moved the boulder and is getting frustrated. He goes again to God and says, "I've done all you asked, I push every day but I can't move the boulder, I have failed. It's just too big and I'll never be able to move it." God replys, "I never asked you to move the boulder, I just asked you to push on it. Now look at yourself, did you not ask me to give you more strength? Your shoulders are much broader, and muscles are bigger. In fact you are much stronger as you requested."<BR/><BR/>In short, all the impediments equal the boulder, God just wants you to push. If you actually move the thing, great. But that's not what's asked of us, just push. If the boulder was smaller, we would have no trouble moving it, but then that wasn't what was asked of us. <BR/><BR/>"Be ye therefore perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" There's the expectation, be perfect. But what are we asked to? Try our best, fix our mistakes, and at the end we will have gain more than if we had been given everything in the beginning. Why? Because you can't be given experience and satisfaction of knowledge you gain by yourself.<BR/><BR/>"What makes more sense is that ‘sin’ is simply a label for behavior that has been judged to be inappropriate whether it is putting your elbows on the table, putting rabbits in the wood chipper or not worshipping god,"<BR/><BR/>Precisely<BR/><BR/>"the bible is folklore that tries to explain it (and other puzzling worldly concepts) in a manner that was understandable to the ancients."<BR/><BR/>Does that make irrelevant to us as a tool to learn about correcting behavior?Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34513507395877721702007-10-03T03:40:00.000-04:002007-10-03T03:40:00.000-04:00Hi rich,I forgot something in my analogies. Whoev...Hi rich,<BR/>I forgot something in my analogies. Whoever sets up the situation already knows the outcome.<BR/>Just insert that somewhere in the premises of each of them.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-33764265158458980522007-10-03T02:10:00.000-04:002007-10-03T02:10:00.000-04:00John:Thanx for one of the inspired typos:homosexul...John:<BR/>Thanx for one of the inspired typos:<BR/><BR/>homosexu<I>laity</I><BR/><BR/>Of course, as an ex-Catholic, I'll have to admit that it wasn't the 'laity' that was as gay as the clergy.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42788090483770186952007-10-02T23:57:00.000-04:002007-10-02T23:57:00.000-04:00Bill, because we have a polite discussion here unl...Bill, because we have a polite discussion here unless provoked.<BR/><BR/>As far as homosexulaity and the Bible goes chech this out: <A HREF="http://sandalstraps.blogspot.com/2005/12/culture-war-and-homosexuality.html" REL="nofollow">link</A>.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83429025989641620662007-10-02T23:08:00.000-04:002007-10-02T23:08:00.000-04:00"The only thing worse than a bad argument FOR the ..."The only thing worse than a bad argument FOR the Bible is a bad one against it."<BR/><BR/>Agreed. In this particular instance, I'm not arguing against the Bible, per se. I'm using a commonly accepted Evangelical Christian doctrine (the depravity of man, as expounded in Romans chapter 1-3) to make a point about God's judgment relative to schizophrenics, psychopaths, et al. No one else seemed to have a problem with my introduction of the Romans 3 text. It's commonly preached from pulpits everywhere.<BR/><BR/>"If you fail to accurately discern the different judgments described in Romans 2 and 3 then your current effort to evaluate the nature and quality of Biblical judgment based on the words of Psalm 14 as quoted by Paul will not be valid."<BR/><BR/>Again, I don't fail to discern anything. I do fail to see how you can ignore the transition into Psalm 14 and 53 (not Psalm 3, as you inaccurately stated) by way of these words: "We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles ALIKE are all under sin. AS IT IS WRITTEN: 'There is none who do good,' etc."<BR/><BR/>Is he addressing the Jew, here? Sure. Is his point that both Jew and Gentile are hopelessly sinful? Surely. That's all I was trying to show with producing this particular text. In your attempt to rebut me, you have assisted me in proving my original point!<BR/><BR/>I would surmise that the ONLY reason you picked such a technical argument to champion is because you simply don't like me. You were pissed off that I challenged you about gay marriage and had to fight back in a particularly mean-spirited way. It is significant that no one else felt the need to nitpick such a small point, but you did.<BR/><BR/>In the end, you are not helping further the discussion or bringing us any closer to enlightenment. You are acting in cannibalistic fashion, counterproductive to the mission of this blog. And the Christians who oppose this blog have got to be sitting back and smugly enjoying show.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64339027520114129032007-10-02T22:52:00.000-04:002007-10-02T22:52:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77057244544173729892007-10-02T21:47:00.000-04:002007-10-02T21:47:00.000-04:00>>>Now, on to serious discussion (can you ride wit...>>>Now, on to serious discussion (can you ride with it, Bill? I'll play nice if you will). <BR/><BR/>That is my policy.<BR/><BR/>>>...Technically, you're right, in that the Psalm that Paul quotes was written by Jews, for Jews. Paul even reminds them of that in verse 19-20...<BR/><BR/>Well, technically is the best way to be right. <BR/><BR/>>>>However, Paul uses the Psalm's relative truth to establish a larger argument in favor of a global condemnation of humanity. <BR/><BR/>Yup.<BR/><BR/>>>>Another point to consider: Paul's letters were read out loud to the entire church. They didn't tell Gentiles to stay for chapter 2, but leave the room for chapter 3. Paul simply interjects messages to different audiences throughout. <BR/><BR/>Please listen carefully and unemotionally to the following because I am going to disagree with you...<BR/><BR/>Paul has very clearly laid out a different scenario for gentiles and their judgment. This difference is germane to the discussion at hand, which is how gentiles are judged and whether that judgment is relative to "the light that one has" and such. If the Bible is being judged by how its judgment is applied to the nations then it is important that its position is properly represented. <BR/><BR/>The only thing worse than a bad argument FOR the Bible is a bad one against it.<BR/><BR/>>>Read Romans 3:9 again and see how naturally it flows into verses 10 and 11. Paul uses the Psalm to back his statement in verse 9. Can we move on now?!?<BR/><BR/>This will, I hope, be my last word on the subject:<BR/><BR/>If you fail to accurately discern the different judgments described in Romans 2 and 3 then your current effort to evaluate the nature and quality of Biblical judgment based on the words of Psalm 3 as quoted by Paul will not be valid. It will be bad science and hence a bad argument (though Christians don't really understand the book either, so I guess they wounldn't object, unless they happened to read my writing!<BR/><BR/>Bill Ross<BR/>http://bibleshockers.blogspot.comWoundedEgohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587474211232415755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64180770104545569162007-10-02T20:16:00.000-04:002007-10-02T20:16:00.000-04:00Ego, I'm breaking my silence with you for a moment...Ego, I'm breaking my silence with you for a moment to applaud you on such a wonderful performance. You play the victim very well (or at least good enough for comic relief). I'm pretty sure everyone can see you through you. While you're busy trying to elicit sympathy for yourself (pitiful, just pitiful), let me assemble a list of the "vicious insults" and assaultive language that YOU have leveled against me, both here and in your comments the Gay Marriage article.<BR/><BR/>Bill ("Buy My Book") Ross' Ad Hominem Hall of Shame<BR/><BR/>* "GOOD FOR F*)(*)* YOU! Yeah!"<BR/>* "I loathe people like you. Words can't even say. Why do you exist? You have a frickin' brain so why don't you use it?"<BR/>* "Fuck you, liar."<BR/>* "So show me where I said it, asshole."<BR/>* "Ditto for the rest of you drivel."<BR/>* "Why (the fucK) do you insist on putting words in my mouth? I never said that."<BR/>* "He was not referring to you or any other retards."<BR/>* "Asshole."<BR/>* "THAT is what you need to consider in regard to divine justice toward gentile retards and schizos.Or just keep on running your mouth in ignorance."<BR/><BR/>And let's not forget it was you who said: "There is nothing like a good insult to really give an argument a solid edge..." <BR/><BR/>So, I don't see what you're whining about. You're acting like a child ("Yet you only address me. Why is that?...Why the double standard?"). Grow up, already.<BR/><BR/>Now, on to serious discussion (can you ride with it, Bill? I'll play nice if you will). <BR/><BR/>To address the Paul/Romans 3 question (hopefully for the last time), Paul condemns BOTH Jews and Gentiles as lost sinners (vs. 9) and he does so by quoting the Psalmist (vv 10-18), who basically says, "There's none who does good, no not one." Technically, you're right, in that the Psalm that Paul quotes was written by Jews, for Jews. Paul even reminds them of that in verse 19-20. However, Paul uses the Psalm's relative truth to establish a larger argument in favor of a global condemnation of humanity. Another point to consider: Paul's letters were read out loud to the entire church. They didn't tell Gentiles to stay for chapter 2, but leave the room for chapter 3. Paul simply interjects messages to different audiences throughout. <BR/><BR/>Read Romans 3:9 again and see how naturally it flows into verses 10 and 11. Paul uses the Psalm to back his statement in verse 9.<BR/><BR/>Can we move on now?!?Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52639865313639044142007-10-02T20:03:00.000-04:002007-10-02T20:03:00.000-04:00I am still here but with limited time. I plan to r...I am still here but with limited time. I plan to respond to Joseph, Lee , and Shygetz as soon<BR/>as I can. It has been a very intriguing topic. So stay tuned.Richhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05816549810869986623noreply@blogger.com