107 reputation
3
bio website
location
age
visits member for 1 year, 2 months
seen Sep 26 '13 at 20:56

Apr
8
comment Did the sun and the moon really stop rotating?
To put my objection to the question another way... you use the phrase "unless by some miracle..." I'm pretty sure this is about as close to a miracle as you can get, it's sort of the whole point of the episode.
Apr
8
comment Did the sun and the moon really stop rotating?
That's a meaningless distinction as far as God's actions are concerned. He could certainly create consequences as well, right - or the illusion of consequences. In fact, maybe everything from that point in time on has been an "illusion" in which God is still allowing the string of illusory consequences to unfold?
Apr
8
comment Did the sun and the moon really stop rotating?
I can't imagine what sort of answer you could hope to get here. The Bible tells of God doing much more surprising things than temporarily altering the motion of Earth, moon and sun. If He did it, I suppose the only way we'd ever be able to guess how He did it would be by divine revelation, and even then it might be beyond comprehension. Also, the distinction between illusion and reality becomes a bit arbitrary here. What would it mean for God to create an illusion that everybody experiences? How is such an illusion any different from what God created that you call reality?
Apr
1
awarded  Commentator
Apr
1
comment Are there any credible arguments that Jesus may have been gay or tending homosexual?
in his actions, but there may have been an actual real preference - even desire, if controlled - one way or the other (and almost certainly one specific way); it's much harder to say that Jesus was asexual in that he didn't have a preference or feel any desire or temptation. Is it a sin to look at a woman and feel sexual attraction? I don't think anybody would claim that. Rather, it becomes a sin when it turns into lust, and the scripture is pretty unequivocal about Jesus not having lust. Perhaps that's what's meant by "burning passion"? Or is all sexual attraction "lust"? Beats me.
Apr
1
comment Are there any credible arguments that Jesus may have been gay or tending homosexual?
@fredsbend I still think you're discounting the significance of the hypothesis "if they cannot control themselves." It seems entirely possible that Jesus was heterosexually oriented and simply controlled his impulses to the point of not having burning passion, in the same way that I prefer chocolate to vanilla ice cream, but can not only abstain - potentially indefinitely - from eating it, but from even thinking about it. Hypothetically speaking, I'd still have a preference for chocolate ice cream, even if I don't act on it. In that sense, Jesus may be said to have been asexual
Apr
1
comment Are there any credible arguments that Jesus may have been gay or tending homosexual?
@fredsbend Where does it say that? The lines you quoted in the comment above, in particular, say nothing of the sort. What I mean to say, of course, is that Paul says that if one cannot control himself, then it is better to marry. There are three options here: control yourself; marry; live unmarried with burning desires. Your quote identifies the third of these as undesirable. While I'd agree that Jesus was probably the first of these, I'd be hesitant to equate a strong control of one's desires with asexuality.
Apr
1
comment Are there any credible arguments that Jesus may have been gay or tending homosexual?
@fredsbend Perhaps a better way of phrasing this is that Jesus was able to control himself. The hypothesis of the conditional is thus rendered false, and the dilemma in the consequent doesn't apply.
Mar
8
comment Good person going to hell simply for not believing?
Assume the Heaven of the Bible exists. Then the God of the Bible exists (it seems difficult to define the Heaven of the Bible without the God of the Bible; if you do, I'd argue you're talking about a different hypothetical heaven, so the argument is moot). But if the God of the Bible exists, He is infallible (by definition). So his choice to send non-believers to Hell is correct. QED
Mar
8
comment Good person going to hell simply for not believing?
@Fofole You're missing the point. To admit the possibility of the biblical heaven is tantamount to admitting the existence of the God of the Bible. Once you do that, the argument is already won: if God does it, then it is right. This is a purely logical argument that depends only on the relevant definitions. If whomever you're arguing with takes issue with the idea that God's is the final say as to what's right and wrong, then either you're not talking about the same God, or you're really having a completely different argument.
Mar
7
comment What's the principle in the eyes of God behind Leviticus leprosy and unclean law?
The only possibility that remains is that a non-believer would use this to try to derive a contradiction in an attempt to reassure himself or herself of the absurdity of believing in the existence of God. This project is doomed to failure, since if you admit God, there is no contradiction: nobody said God's ways would be comprehensible to Man. Indeed, the opposite is often explicitly stated.
Mar
7
comment What's the principle in the eyes of God behind Leviticus leprosy and unclean law?
@Daniel I guess what I'm saying is this: the only way to know why God did something is for God to tell you. If it isn't explained in the Bible, and you don't receive a revelation, there's no way to know through reasoning or science. A believer should have faith that God bends all things to good. I don't imagine non-believers would be at all interested in why some say God imposed these restrictions: if they don't believe God is real, they then have to believe that these restrictions were imposed by man, and even non-believers admit that Man can err.
Mar
7
comment Good person going to hell simply for not believing?
To wit, 40:1 Moreover the LORD answered Job, and said, 40:2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it. The rest of the book consists basically of God showing how ridiculous the concept of questioning "fairness" is. "Fairness" isn't a problem with an omnipotent and omniscient God who authored all creation; something's "fair" if God says it is. Contradiction is not an option.
Mar
7
comment Good person going to hell simply for not believing?
I've never found this lack of "fairness" argument to be terribly convincing. The book of Job in the old testament does a pretty good job of roundly defeating the idea that God owes anything to anybody for any reason.
Mar
7
comment What's the principle in the eyes of God behind Leviticus leprosy and unclean law?
@Daniel Is your question, "Why did God do this instead of that?" If so, the answer is that your guess is as good as mine.
Feb
16
awarded  Teacher
Feb
16
awarded  Supporter
Feb
16
answered Calvinism: How does Limited Atonement Work in View of the Universality of Christ's Work?