Ben Stein Expelled

[Kolle]

There's a difference between a spanking and burning in hell for eternity. If you can't see that...

The basis of my faith are the manifestations I have seen in my own life. The concepts presented by the bible are not bound to it. If the bible were not to exist there would still be a questioning of morality and justice and search for truth in each person. When that truth is found it resonates with humans, it connects to us in a deeply profound way.
When a person experiences this they are changed. That sense of change and the actions they take as a result are evidence of their faith.
There have been many examples of people who have been able to exhibit this selfless commitment to others and many of them did not base their faith on the bible.

There are some core precepts that must be adhered to in order for someone to be able to act in such a manner. I find the teachings of Christ to be an excellent standard by which to achieve them. Regardless of what a person claims to be or where a person has come from the only true evidence of who they are, are their words and actions.

I can not prove my faith to you or anyone else. I can merely show evidence through my actions and words. No matter where a discussion leads I wish to be respectful of everyone involved. That is but a small action but a vital one all the same. Only though such interactions can the truth I choose to accept be verified.

I'm not bashing you, but most of this is just brainwashing nonsense. If you can toss out the bible then you are just making stuff up as you go. If I chose to believe in a pickle god just for the hell of it then we would be on equal terms.

But you do bring up the teachings of christ. This is something I notice a lot of "new age christians" trying to do. They pretend that the only thing that matters is what christ said. There are numerous things wrong with this. First I must remind everyone that the bible carries proven false information. You can't even trust that what you read is really what Jesus taught. Second if you read the new testement you'll learn that Jesus gives power and authority to his disciples to go out and teach in his name. So if you really believe what Jesus says, then you will follow everything his disciples eventually teach as well. Thirdly...Jesus believed things like slavery was ok. So I dunno how much stock you can really put in Jesus.

The fact is he was one of many "messiahs" running around at the time. He became popular and his people pulled a fast one by stealing his body. If the others had been smart enough to do some shit like that then the country might be worshiping a different son of god.

[Pancreas]

Originally Posted by Millie

The "loving parent" metaphor has been used quite a bit on this thread, and while I don't want to disparage your faith in any way, I think there are some flaws in the comparison. For one thing, our parents don't inhabit every aspect of our being at all times. Our parents can't control our actions or foresee their consequences. Our parents aren't omni-everything. God is (or at least claims to be). Given all of God's infinites (power, wisdom, knowledge, love, etc.), it seems highly irrational that he'd even have a Hell in the first place. The idea of certain people being "unforgivable" enough to go to Hell for eternity contradicts the idea of an all-loving "parent." Not to mention that getting angry or punishing your "children" when you ARE your children, in the existential sense, is a little silly.

When we act in a manner that is deemed wrong and come face to face with the truth of our actions we feel guilt. This is a self administered condition. There are times when our guilt is so great we can not be consoled. If there is an eternity after this life it is likely to act as a lens, magnifying our experiences here. To realize that our short and precious time had been squandered for things that are of no consequence or worse, that we had wrongly accosted our fellow man and were now witness to his suffering would result in unbearable guilt.

This self loathing and the inability to be consoled, for want of making things right and being unable to, is what prevents a person from experiencing forgiveness.

That is true damnation. Not hellfire and torment but complete isolation and the powerlessness to change what has been done.

As long as we are alive there is the possibility we might better ourselves and explain who we are through our actions, and come to a place were we are capable of accepting forgiveness.

The parent metaphor is limited in scope. The only purpose was to show that there is a need to make us aware the consequences of our actions. Correction and punishment are tools to that end.

Also, as I've said earlier, the idea of someone living a totally good life but happening to go to Hell because they weren't born a Christian is entirely inconsistent with an omnibenevolent ruler.

I agree. The presence or lack of the Christian label does not hinder or accelerate damnation. In fact, it has served to segregate society more than not.

Finally, why would God have created ANYTHING in the first place? What was the point? For his amusement? Does he need to be amused? If so, he's less than perfect. A perfect being requires nothing -- not amusement, not alleviation from boredom, not a fun game to play, and certainly not a day of rest after creating everything.

This is the core of the omni-god question. If God is perfect what purpose could there be for the existence of flawed beings? I think the purpose is contained within the choices we make. The decisions we make during our short lives, often in obscurity, are the most important interactions in the universe. That our seemingly inconsequential actions are in fact a primary reason for all of existence. Again it could be asked why this is. I do not know why a perfect God would create a universe such as this. I do however know that if we treat each choice we make with great care, as if it were a gift, then our lives serve to benefit each other.

At any rate, thank you for your contirbutions to this thread. I mean that. It's really fun to talk to you about this stuff, because I can tell you are a very smart person. So are most people here. But I particularly enjoy talking to you about this stuff.

Thank you. I enjoy the challenges that these discussions can present as it gives me the opportunity to explore my own beliefs. Nothing should be taken for granted, least of all our ideals.

[Asmadai]

Millie, I'm not going to quote and rehash most of the things you said, but I'm still sticking to my guns with the fact that you have the complete wrong definition of omnipotence in your head.

I said it before, God told mankind that he "can do all things", not that he "is constantly doing all things".

That definition states He is capable of doing all things. Where this addition of 'all-power means whatever you can do, you must do it all the time' in concern to your controlling our very actions was not spoken by God. If that truly is the current definition of omnipotence, who do you think gave it that definition if not God?

If God has to constantly exert control over us to maintain his status of omnipotence, why is He so picky-choosy with that 'power'? Like I said before, his omnipotence is what created the universe, etc. If he isn't exerting those specific 'powers' constantly, which I don't believe He is, are you going to say that He still can't be omnipotent?

Omnipotence covers alot of stuff. Claiming that He has to do a specific part of that omnipotence constantly to not be contradictory, only to turn a blind eye to everything else his omnipotence can do is just silly.

[Pancreas]

Originally Posted by Kolle

I'm not bashing you, but most of this is just brainwashing nonsense. If you can toss out the bible then you are just making stuff up as you go. If I chose to believe in a pickle god just for the hell of it then we would be on equal terms.

We would not be on equal terms because your belief would need to serve a purpose. If you believed in your pickle God because you wished to better serve your fellow man and help them in the troubling times ahead then we would be getting close. The truth of your beliefs would be made clear by the actions you would take.

But you do bring up the teachings of christ. This is something I notice a lot of "new age christians" trying to do. They pretend that the only thing that matters is what christ said. There are numerous things wrong with this. First I must remind everyone that the bible carries proven false information. You can't even trust that what you read is really what Jesus taught. Second if you read the new testement you'll learn that Jesus gives power and authority to his disciples to go out and teach in his name. So if you really believe what Jesus says, then you will follow everything his disciples eventually teach as well. Thirdly...Jesus believed things like slavery was ok. So I dunno how much stock you can really put in Jesus.

Point One:Like I have said before, the only proof that a teaching is true is the results that it produces when applied to ones life.

Point Two:If a person is in complete compliance with what Christ has taught, then their life and their words and their actions become a testament to those teachings. So they can be seen as an extension of his words, however it is always necessary to verify such things with the core tenants of Christ.

Point Three: The closest quote I could find to support your claim was this:
Matthew 20:25-28

25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Here he is describing that those in positions of leadership should be subservient to the interests of the people they rule.

The fact is he was one of many "messiahs" running around at the time. He became popular and his people pulled a fast one by stealing his body. If the others had been smart enough to do some shit like that then the country might be worshiping a different son of god.

I have examined some of Christ's contemporaries and there are many partial elements in each. Some directly borrow their teachings from Christ or have based their teachings on the same works as cited by Christ but each leaves off a key element in my opinion. This does not prevent people from still demonstrating great benevolence while maintaining such teachings. I have personally found Christ's teachings to be the most comprehensive.

As for nationally adopted faiths they are prone to corruption and abuse. It prevents people from examining the challenges of life for themselves as they blindly try to apply government issued doctrine to their lives.

[Kolle]

Point One:Like I have said before, the only proof that a teaching is true is the results that it produces when applied to ones life.

This does nothing for proving Jesus is the son of a god. Anyone can give a statement of common sense and pretend it's a teaching. You can tell your child not to stick a fork into a wall socket. That's a pretty good teaching. Doesn't make the parent a god.

There were people giving good advice long before Jesus supposedly existed.

Point Two:If a person is in complete compliance with what Christ has taught, then their life and their words and their actions become a testament to those teachings. So they can be seen as an extension of his words, however it is always necessary to verify such things with the core tenants of Christ.

If you are a christian and you expect to get into heaven then you must follow the entire new testement. If you do not then you are directly going against Jesus.

I hardly need to point this out, but most christians do not follow the entire new testement. They pick and choose what they think sounds good then claim they follow the teachings of christ.

Bottom Line: You *Cannot* claim to follow the teachings of Jesus while disregarding even one thing in the new testement.

Point Three: The closest quote I could find to support your claim was this:
Matthew 20:25-28

As I stated above, you cannot disregard the new testement. You cannot pick and choose what you want rules or guides you want to follow. If you do then you go against Jesus. He directly gave power to the apostles to go and teach his word. They were filled with the holy spirit. If you disobey something an apostle said do then you disobey christ and god.

Now, the new testement has more than one mention of slavery. The only stipulation is that you must treat your slaves decently. However, it is perfectly ok to legally own another human being. You can own another person and be an upstanding christian. So yeah, why are some black people christians anyway? Yo what's up Jesse Jackson.


Ephesians 6:5 - Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9 - And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22 - Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1 - Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

1 Timothy 6:1-2 - All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.

Titus 2:9 - Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything

1 Peter 2:18 - Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

[Pancreas]

Originally Posted by Kolle

This does nothing for proving Jesus is the son of a god. Anyone can give a statement of common sense and pretend it's a teaching. You can tell your child not to stick a fork into a wall socket. That's a pretty good teaching. Doesn't make the parent a god.

There were people giving good advice long before Jesus supposedly existed.

Not all advice is sound and none offered redemption without sacrifice.

If you are a christian and you expect to get into heaven then you must follow the entire new testement. If you do not then you are directly going against Jesus.

I hardly need to point this out, but most christians do not follow the entire new testement. They pick and choose what they think sounds good then claim they follow the teachings of christ.

Bottom Line: You *Cannot* claim to follow the teachings of Jesus while disregarding even one thing in the new testement.

Christ gave two commandments:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

All teachings claiming to be Christ like, regardless of the source, should be checked against those two tenants.

Nothing should be followed blindly by association. If the spirit of Christ does in fact dwell within a person then there will be no conflict with those commandments.

As I stated above, you cannot disregard the new testement. You cannot pick and choose what you want rules or guides you want to follow. If you do then you go against Jesus. He directly gave power to the apostles to go and teach his word. They were filled with the holy spirit. If you disobey something an apostle said do then you disobey christ and god.

Now, the new testement has more than one mention of slavery. The only stipulation is that you must treat your slaves decently. However, it is perfectly ok to legally own another human being. You can own another person and be an upstanding christian. So yeah, why are some black people christians anyway? Yo what's up Jesse Jackson.


Ephesians 6:5 - Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9 - And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22 - Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1 - Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

1 Timothy 6:1-2 - All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.

Titus 2:9 - Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything

1 Peter 2:18 - Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

In each of those circumstances the people being spoken to were already slaves. Given the situation, obedience is sound advice. It is only through such selfless behavior that the heart of the master could be changed. If the slave had give rise to rebellion it would have resulted in death for themselves and punishment to others.

This holds true for prisoners. It is only through dedication to such teaching that a captor can witness first hand what it means to be a disciple of Christ. In this way their hearts may be changed as well.

Everyone knows what to do in the face of one who is violent. Few can withstand the gaze of one who still shows love in the face of torment.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Millie

It's not the all-knowing, but the all-powerful bit that precludes you from having emotions or preferences. By definition, to be all-powerful is to be omnipresent: meaning, you inhabit everything at once. You simply ARE everything in all creation across all timelines simultaneously.

I'm wondering if you realize the depth of your accuracy with that statement? If so, bravo!

Originally Posted by Millie

By necessity, if you are omnipresent/omnipotent, you cannot inhabit a state of being that excludes any other states of being. Anger excludes other emotional states; ergo, to be angry is to not be omnipresent, which is to not be omnipotent. It is also contradictory with the idea of being omnibenevolent. If you're 100% loving, there are BIG problems with getting "angry" enough at a soul to cast them into Hell for all time.

Yup, this is one of the first clues that people pick up on. A finite crime does not equal an infinite punishment.

[Kolle]

Christ gave two commandments:
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

All teachings claiming to be Christ like, regardless of the source, should be checked against those two tenants.

Nothing should be followed blindly by association. If the spirit of Christ does in fact dwell within a person then there will be no conflict with those commandments.

What you say makes no difference. If you do not follow the entire new testament you are directly going against christ. You cannot claim to follow christ's teachings without following the entire new testament. It's a contradiction.

In each of those circumstances the people being spoken to were already slaves. Given the situation, obedience is sound advice. It is only through such selfless behavior that the heart of the master could be changed. If the slave had give rise to rebellion it would have resulted in death for themselves and punishment to others.

This holds true for prisoners. It is only through dedication to such teaching that a captor can witness first hand what it means to be a disciple of Christ. In this way their hearts may be changed as well.

Everyone knows what to do in the face of one who is violent. Few can withstand the gaze of one who still shows love in the face of torment.

You can't excuse slavery.

The new testament 'OKs' slavery. It's that simple. You can try to brush it aside and make excuses, but it doesn't work. It's right there plain as day. It's ok to own slaves.


Now, if Jesus and the rest were against slavery then they would have abolished it. They never put in the bible, "Well...if you're screwing your brother's wife now then go ahead and keep doing it guess. But don't you dare start screwing your other brother's wife!"

I've made my points very clear. There's no way to refute them without dancing around like a politician. If anyone wants to continue doing that then be my guest. If someone is brainwashed into believing then their just gonna believe no matter what you say, even in the face of evidence as this thread proves. See ya in the next religion thread.

[Pancreas]

Originally Posted by Kolle

What you say makes no difference. If you do not follow the entire new testament you are directly going against christ. You cannot claim to follow christ's teachings without following the entire new testament. It's a contradiction.

If we do not verify what we believe we can not hope to truly understand it.

Luke 6:39
And he spake a parable unto them, "Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?"

If we do not understand what it is we follow we make our minds to be without sight.

You can't excuse slavery.

The new testament 'OKs' slavery. It's that simple. You can try to brush it aside and make excuses, but it doesn't work. It's right there plain as day. It's ok to own slaves.


Now, if Jesus and the rest were against slavery then they would have abolished it.

It is a method of resistance called non-violence and has been employed several times in the past to great effect.

What is the goal of the abolitionist? To make plain the injustice of slavery and remove it's taint from the world.

What is the effect of treating those who have wronged you with compassion?
It makes plain the injustice they have caused. When a person is forced to deal with their own evils they are taken over by guilt. It is this aspect of humanity that allows people to change when faced with such things.

If those who perpetrate a behavior have their hearts changed the people they once were cease to exist and so does the behavior they were perpetrating.

This is the same result as abolition without the destruction of the offender. Instead of merely freeing the slave and saving one life, this also frees the master and saves two lives.

I've made my points very clear. There's no way to refute them without dancing around like a politician. If anyone wants to continue doing that then be my guest. If someone is brainwashed into believing then their just gonna believe no matter what you say, even in the face of evidence as this thread proves. See ya in the next religion thread.

I pray humility for myself whenever I am faced with a question. If I do not assume I already have the answer then I am less likely to overlook it in my search. This is a good model for any form of inquiry.

I am glad we had this time to exchange thoughts. I look forward to any further dialogue we may have.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Asmadai

Millie, I'm not going to quote and rehash most of the things you said, but I'm still sticking to my guns with the fact that you have the complete wrong definition of omnipotence in your head.

...

Omnipotence covers alot of stuff. Claiming that He has to do a specific part of that omnipotence constantly to not be contradictory, only to turn a blind eye to everything else his omnipotence can do is just silly.

It's not about a "definition of omnipotence" that's the issue. It's an understanding of what omnipotence actually entails, and how the Christian God as depicted in the Bible fails on many occasions to live up to those qualifications.

Omnipotence, by nature, is the ability to do anything. Can we agree to that? To put it another way, to be omnipotent is to possess the maximal amount of control one can have over all existence. If you do not possess maximal control over all existence, you are less than omnipotent.

Now, let's take this understanding of omnipotence and draw from it an important conclusion: to be able to do all things is to do them. (Because if you're NOT doing and being all things at all times, it stands to reason that someone who CAN is more powerful than you are; ergo, you are less than omnipotent).

There can be no moment in time wherein you're not exercising total control. Being all-powerful and "doing" all-powerful are one and the same, because if you're not exercising your full power at any given moment, you're in a sub-omnipotent state. A truly omnipotent being doesn't fluctuate between omnipotence and sub-omnipotence. A truly omnipotent being is always being and performing omnipotence.

Of course, if we dig really deep into this understanding, we come to the conclusion that omnipotence cannot possibly exist. But that's a different philosophical argument for a different thread, perhaps.

The point is, if God "takes time off" from being all-pervasive, all-powerful, etc., for even a split second, he's less than all-pervasive and all-powerful. For instance, the existence of true "free will" means that there are actions God does not anticipate or has not willed into being. This contradicts the idea of God who is actually and wholly omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient.

Why is this the case? Because if God hasn't willed your actions into being, he's sub-omnipotent. And if he HAS willed your actions into being, you're not exercising free will. You see the fundamental paradox here? Thus we see that free will and omnipotence cannot coexist. One by necessity contradicts the other.

This is not a semantics debate about how to "define" omnipotence. It is a philosophical and logical inquiry into omnipotence and its necessary conflict with the concept of the Abrahamic God as depicted in the Bible.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Pancreas

If God is perfect what purpose could there be for the existence of flawed beings? I think the purpose is contained within the choices we make. The decisions we make during our short lives, often in obscurity, are the most important interactions in the universe. That our seemingly inconsequential actions are in fact a primary reason for all of existence. Again it could be asked why this is. I do not know why a perfect God would create a universe such as this. I do however know that if we treat each choice we make with great care, as if it were a gift, then our lives serve to benefit each other.

a) We don't make choices if God really is all-powerful. God makes them.

b) Why would a perfect being need to add anything to the universe if he's already there and he's already perfect? What's the point of having created humanity and created the neat little world he's set up for humanity? Why? If he is perfect, there can be nothing of any value beyond his existence, and thus no reason for adding anything in the first place. If God were truly all-powerful and all-perfect, he'd never have bothered creating a thing. He simply would be. A perfect being wants for nothing, because he is fundamentally self-contained and perfect. There can be no emotion or "boredom" or need to do a thing.

[Pinchandroll]

This is one of the worst examples of circular logic in the history of the internet.

You do realize that if people didn't have the capability to sin, atonement wouldn't be necessary, right?

...Right?

All I am saying is that God is demonstrating the ultimate act of love by self-sacrifice for the sake of everyone, and the only way for us to comprehend that love is in the presence of sin.

How is that fallacious reasoning? God demonstrates the greatest love by sacrificing himself, and the only way for us to understand this is in terms of sin and atonement. It's pretty simple, and in no way illogical.

[Pancreas]

Originally Posted by Millie

a) We don't make choices if God really is all-powerful. God makes them.

b) Why would a perfect being need to add anything to the universe if he's already there and he's already perfect? What's the point of having created humanity and created the neat little world he's set up for humanity? Why? If he is perfect, there can be nothing of any value beyond his existence, and thus no reason for adding anything in the first place. If God were truly all-powerful and all-perfect, he'd never have bothered creating a thing. He simply would be. A perfect being wants for nothing, because he is fundamentally self-contained and perfect. There can be no emotion or "boredom" or need to do a thing.

I have been thinking on the nature of omni-(insert quality here). What follows is nothing more than silly conjecture.

If something were to be everything, all states, all power, everywhere it must also fill the gaps left by any of the contradictory qualities such as nothing, formless, powerless, and nowhere. For a single entity to fulfill so many qualifications is more than a little difficult to comprehend.

I thought then about the way in which our universe is organized. Everything is simultaneously made of smaller pieces and is itself part of a larger whole. What if god were the same way.

I thought about a theoretical particle of matter. The smallest part. If such a particle exists and the universe does have a bottom so to speak how many omni-qualities would such a particle be attributed with?

I believe it would be omni-present where matter was found. It would be omnipotent as all action would essentially be manifestations of its qualities. Since everything would be extrapolations of the qualities it exhibited it is essentially a blueprint for everything. I am not sure if that qualifies for omniscient though. Does it need to be aware of itself or is simply containing the information of the universe enough to qualify?

In other words it would fit many of the requirements and its fractured nature would allow it to occupy and maintain several contradictory states simultaneously. In addition to this, all particles we have found have their anti-particle equivalents. So the same might be assumed for such a particle as this. Being it's own opposite and having the previously mentioned omni-properties would result in something that could fulfill all of the previous conditions. I think.

And as for free will. If such a particle did exist, everything would be a result of it's existence. Even these words I am typing. Could free will from an individual and God's omnipotence be coaxial? Sharing the same space and time, could they occur in concert?

That's all I have right now. I am not even sure what connotations such a premise would have. I do know this however. Theories like this are best not taken seriously as the influence of any conclusion would be nominal in relation the situation humans find themselves in today.

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Millie

a) We don't make choices if God really is all-powerful. God makes them.

Oddly enough, I'd almost argue that you'd need God or some entity that existed outside the bounds of the universe to actively give you free will (if such a thing exists) because theres simply no other way to escape causality.

[Tea on tuesday]

Originally Posted by Jedah

Oddly enough, I'd almost argue that you'd need God or some entity that existed outside the bounds of the universe to actively give you free will (if such a thing exists) because theres simply no other way to escape causality.

There are lots of ways. Free will could simply be a result of the complicated structure of the mammalian brain and it's complex neural networks. There's nothing that physically prevents it, or perhaps an undiscovered fundamental particle interacts in some certain way that causes free will to arise, who knows. You certainly don't need a deity like figure to imbue it, all though they certainly could.