@Bishop
So, logical reasons to believe in the miraculous depictions of events in the Bible falls into what I mentioned at the end of the last long discussion yesterday, and since that took me a year and a half to write, I'll answer this one after work, since it could also be pretty long.

I'll have to disputed the notion that the apostles were trained superspies with techniques that rival modern methods even though they had no real motive. Of course, we want to examine all possibilities before we can really claim one statement is true over another. I'll write up on that after work as well.



The problem here is that as humans, we don't really have a say in what is "reasonable" when it comes to morality. The idea behind Christian theology is that the Bible was inspired by God, who put it on paper through man (essentially the idea that like we write with pencils, God wrote through the humans who put the Bible into writing). So sin in and of itself is based on God's decision of what is good and evil (good = follows the nature of God and evil = doesn't). Logically speaking, we cannot claim moral superiority to the literal definition of what is/isn't moral. Because God, by definition, is the perfect "good," there is no foundation that anything he does is incorrect. It would be like a program telling a programmer that he shouldn't have coded in x feature. The programmer does what he intends to do. So even though Hell seems like an extreme punishment for someone who has sinned (though I will point out that nobody sins only once), the fact that it is the consequence says that sin is more serious than we perceive it rather than God is unjust in his decision. The Christian theology is that no quantity of good can make up for the amount of evil a single sin brings into our life. (Forgive the programming analogies—I'm a computer scientist)—a single flipped bit can cause an entire program to crash, redefine behavior, or produce bad results. In the scope of the billions of bits that might be in a program, a single flipped zero to one or vice-versa might seem wildly insignificant, but the impact it has is enormous. If it's not an issue with faulty programming logic, the programmer will simply kill the program, destroying it, and start again. However, God gives us a way out of that fate by allowing us to be uncorrupted through him (such as the same programmer who happened to make a data integrity verification/troubleshooting script). So consider it this way: instead of scrapping the project entirely, God put in extra work to allow the existing one to escape destruction. Instead of thinking of it as an angry God sending people to Hell who could otherwise go to Heaven, think of it as a loving God who will allow people who would otherwise go to Hell to be cleaned and go to Heaven. The issue is that we often think that the "default state" of mankind ought to be in heaven, or whatever other good state you'd like to choose. Unfortunately, because mankind is evil, that default ends up being Hell and we're fortunate to have any way to escape.

<Snipped quote>

I'm sorry but you seem to have the wrong misconception that if in the start there is anarchy, it will go on as so. But as seen by human history all the way from the beginning, they always have someone in the lead, a leader. Now, I was hypothesizing how that leader got into a position of power and I said the most likely scenario was using hired guns, armed personnel to get every common folk in order under him. And that's the most primitive way, gain the leadership through a showcasing of your powers and capabilities. But now, that leader could as well be a tyrant. So in the end, anarchy will never stay, there will always from governing systems.

<Snipped quote>

I'm not confusing anything. Governing systems would definitely form. And most of them would be tyranny, one ultimate leader. Isn't that the way of nature? The strongest rises above all others?

<Snipped quote>

My bad, I can't seem to stick with only using the words for their dictionary meaning. We are animals but we are above every other creature on the planet and as so you can't compare how they live to how we live and the systems we have developed.

My point with this was to make clear that evolution through natural selection is old, primitive, takes a lot of time. Evolution through science on the other hand, freely being able to change the traits that you leave to the next generation is the next step. Even just focusing on cybernetic enhancements to improve the human as a whole is a better way compared to the age long process of evolution through natural selection. And how would it benefit the species long term? As far as we have gone, as humans, it is not just about surviving or procreating anymore, it is about improvement and exploration of the unknown. You type about a world where surviving and evolution through natural selection are all humans need like some common non sentient animal with only those prime directives forged into its DNA.

<Snipped quote>

Yeah, small scale wars between formed communities and clans. Great way of killing off most of the population. You don't know the shit that people would start a war about, especially when it's between families in a place where there is no governing system to set matters straight. That other person also has people, it is a never ending cycle unless you kill all of their clan to end it.

<Snipped quote>

I entirely agree with that. I, again, didn't express myself correctly. What I meant to say was that, for the current generation, for those people who aren't suffering the blunt end of this phenomena, like you(i presume?) and me, how does it drastically affect our daily lives? For city folk, how does it affect their daily job, when they meet with friends, when they go to a movie? Why should they care if it doesn't affect them when they obviously don't care about the next generation? The earth is suffering, humanity as a whole is suffering but most individuals who aren't, don't give a rat's arse. That's what I meant by "current generation".

<Snipped quote>

What's the point of establishing that it doesn't exist? It makes transaction of objects between people easier. If everything has a fixed value, even if that value is abstract and doesn't exist, it makes trading a lot more efficient. And even without it, if you were to trade without currency, the comparison of values between 2 objects for trade would be subjective. So in the end it is the same but with currency that object has a price tag on it showing exactly how much the owner values it out front. However you look at it, currency is the most practical solution.

<Snipped quote>

In anarchy no, there isn't. An autistic person who is extraordinary on a certain field of science, that person has no place in anarchy.
And you can't argue that research on every single field whatever it may be would be severely hindered. People are divided into numerous small factions. In a nation, you have the greatest minds come together to research that field, how would that work in anarchy?

<Snipped quote>

I didn't ignore it. I just said that nature itself would be irrelevant if we reach a certain point in our evolution through science. Basically "cheating nature" to skip a step.
And if we happen to go extinct by our own hands, then we probably wouldn't deserve to exist at all. No matter how you look at it, if people would want to change something, you can forget the laws and governing systems, they would get that change. But the most you get are some people gathered in a protest while the others basically don't give 2 shits about the future.
You might say"why should humanity, the good part of it, the talented people, suffer because of most humans not caring and being mindless?"
"Well why should humanity be saved just because of that small percentage of people when most are brainless baboons?"

- So you start out completely incorrect. In my original comment, I specifically stated "Holds no restrictions on the formation of new forms of government within it, allowing for a workable society to form as necessary" as one of the benefits. How you can claim that I somehow believe that anarchy will remain such is beyond my understanding. You're trying to make a non-point. Like I said, trying to argue against anarchy because governments will form is not a point against anarchy, it is a condemnation of anything and everything else.
- No, it's not. That's a common misconception. The strongest aren't the ones in power, the most adaptable are. The way of nature is adaptation, not strength. Film Theory did a wonderful job explaining why your assumption is incorrect, though taking it to a massive extreme due to the context, so I'll leave it to that instead of trying to say it in a less effective way. The kind of people who would want to be tyrants are the type of people who cannot survive, let alone thrive and gain power, without social systems to manipulate. The people who have that sort of predisposition need a foothold that simply doesn't exist in anarchy in order to get power.
- That's also incorrect. The only differences between us and the next placers, wolves, bears, and apes, are our limb structure, communication systems, and lack of object-oriented thought processes. There are birds that can use smartphones, primates that can communicate through sign language, wolves have built a more stable and peaceful social structure than we have, and bears are able to quickly devise survival mechanisms for completely foreign environments. We seem superior because we are looking at our species from within it. It would take only a few simple changes for any other species to be in our place. We're lucky, not better.
You also seem to have this idea that we are somehow above our genes. Everything we do, this very conversation, is dictated by how our genes have made us respond to the stimuli we have experienced and random chance. And while guided genetic alteration would be preferable to the natural genetic drift, it does not solve the problems of our species. I didn't mention natural selection only in reference to genetics; the effect that the loss of our current systems would have and the effect that a daily fight for survival would have is the more beneficial factor. It's because we no longer are affected by natural selection that we have gotten to the point where we have thoroughly corrupted every social system that has been created to date. That separation is beneficial to the individual human, if they are lucky in terms of where they are born, but it is harmful to the species and its future.
- Exactly. The philosophical "circle of hatred" is the point. Either there will be people who can end that chain, therefor better than those before them, or those groups will wipe each other out and lackluster people will be removed from the whole. This is a benefit, not a problem. To point to a wonderful example in fiction, the Uchihas in Naruto fit. The only way the group survived at all is that there were three who became better than the others. If they had all continued to be violent and self-destructive, then they would have died out and with them would die the conflict and poisonous factors that made them the way they were. It's very much an issue of adapt or die, simply on a scale of multiple organisms.
- Why should it matter what the current generation thinks? Like you said, it doesn't care about the future generations. That is a factor that should be removed, and would be affected by the return of natural selection. When humans once again have to risk their own lives for the sake of their offspring, rather than simply invest time if even that in them, care for coming generations will increase. I see no reason why the current generation should receive special treatment over any other.
- The purpose of showing that it does not exist is to show that it is an unnecessary and in fact harmful factor in transactions. What dictates how much of a currency something is worth? The same thing that dictates what object would be comparative for it. Simply take the fact that multiple currencies exist in mind. The "value" of a currency changes constantly. A bottle of water costs more now than twenty years ago, but the subjective value that someone would place on that bottle of water has not changed. The same person in the same situation would value it the same regardless of what monetary value others placed on it. The problem with currency is that it has neither value nor use. Trading in rocks would be an improvement, because at least rocks can be used. There is a placeholder for value on it. If tomorrow the world's currency finally crashed, the fact that it is imaginary would no longer be some vague thing to not worry about. The more currency you had, the higher your loss would be when the species realized that it has no use and therefor no reason to assign their subjective worths to it. If you and I both had ten gallons of drinkable water, and you sold yours for 1000 dollars via check, and I sold mine for 1000 dollars in cash, we would be losing something with use for something without use, in my case, and for something that flat out doesn't exist in your case. This is why "the gold standard" is wrong, because the only use gold has is in relatively advanced technology, which the average person cannot use it for. Trade boils down to the subjective value of survival necessities: food, drink, shelter materials, and time. Currency removes that subjective value and replaces it with an unenforceable assumption that you have something of equal subjective value. It is simply a hope, and hope has no subjective value. This is a roundabout way of saying it, but the short of it is simply that using currency makes everything valueless, rather than keeping everything valued at what it can do for an individual.
- How do you think that society formed? Do you believe that humans grew to use and further develop tools without the greatest local minds working together for a common interest? Mutual survival is what drives advancement the fastest, not economic development nor the simple pursuit of knowledge, however much we may wish otherwise.
- Just like any other species, humans should not be simply allowed to go extinct. That is why I advocate returning natural selection. It is the best chance at long term survival for the species. To poison the body to kill the cancer and allow the damaged body to slowly recover. Even if the majority will die out, the majority are horrible regardless. The good will die out too, but those to come later will have a higher chance of being good, and this will only expound. If it fails to do so, then humanity will die out as a whole, but at least then it wouldn't be taking out all the rest of the species on the planet with it, and at least it would have a chance rather than simply suffocating itself out of its own stupidity.

<Snipped quote by DarkwolfX37>

I'm not arguing that we know who wrote every book. It's only really relevant in the four gospels, and we do know who wrote those as you mentioned. I'm not saying that all of them wrote something either. We have evidence of authorship in "the major ones in the Bible," and the ones in the Bible are the only ones in referring to. It seems as though you think I'm referring to external authors.
Now we're getting somewhere. I'll argue that the breadth of disputed books is much narrower than 20 books—it's closer to a cap of 5 with some fringe sects believing otherwise. The main 66 are well established and widely adopted, and the significance of the disputed books is minimal.
If we're going to talk about translation, however, I totally agree that KJV is not an authoritative source of accuracy. I do believe that you are overstating the significance of the disparacies between that version and the original, but keep in mind that this was the first translation of the Latin scripture into English, so the process wasn't exactly as ideal as it is now. But when compared to ESV (widely regarded as one of the most accurate translations), there aren't particularly any theological differences. Fortunately, we have access to extremely early texts and thousands of samples to determine that the original writings were not corrupted over time.
You seem to be referring to what many believers read as "Bible books," even if they're not part of the actual scripture (which is what your statement regarding what they follow as canon seems to get across). Correct me if I'm wrong in this, but the difference is that I'm not exactly interested in sources the layman will follow outside of the main biblical text because those aren't sources of the main theology.
Finally, when I refer to the "early Church," I mean before the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire or even the Catholic Church itself. At this time, believers were referred to as followers of "The Way" until they were initially called Christians at Antioch. Even before the Council of Nicaea, these early Christians had already established amongst themselves what would be considered literary canon (save discussions on books like James and Revelation, as previously mentioned).

That depends on what you mean by "the layman."
The problem with your definition of the early church is that at the time that I think you're referring to, several of the common canon works hadn't even been written yet, and several came from other areas where those people would not have access to the works from yet. The latter part of that is only problematic for the OT, since there have been variations in the... I'm blanking on the accurate term at the moment, so I'll substitute "jewish" for it, the jewish canon between the first writings in the NT and latter writings, some of which then affected the christian canon. Further, there's the issue ARAMAIC WAS THE WORD, I'm 75% sure. The jewish and growths from judaism that the holy books for which were written in aramaic languages, specifically. The further issue is that the group you're referring to is after the jewish bible had been translated to and then from latin with some changes before becoming the OT that was used. This leads to the creation of Hell as a concept in place of the judaic afterlife, the integration of every hasatan into the singular Satan (name) due to the King Solomon passages, and a few minor and varying in importance translation issues. Though since this only included the OT and very earliest NT stories, it's not really worth a tangent and we've been over them before anyway. I believe one example, and correct me if I'm wrong, is the removal of the story of the death of Cain. As far as I'm aware, it was either not included in that compilation or was removed since then, and is a good example of such instances. Then came the issue of the apostle who I can never remember which one, who occasionally made up words which have then been translated with varying accuracy. Not a big issue, but surprisingly important in the issue of homosexuality as it is the only mention of it being wrong in the NT that was not a repeating of the OT, barring some variations like we're talking about.
But yes, if you consider the literary canon to begin at that compilation, then you'd have a strong case against many of my previous point in other discussions, since they occurred before that time and therefor you could consider to not be "christian canon," depending on the variant texts we're discussing.

<Snipped quote by Meta>

That depends on what you mean by "the layman."
The problem with your definition of the early church is that at the time that I think you're referring to, several of the common canon works hadn't even been written yet, and several came from other areas where those people would not have access to the works from yet. The latter part of that is only problematic for the OT, since there have been variations in the... I'm blanking on the accurate term at the moment, so I'll substitute "jewish" for it, the jewish canon between the first writings in the NT and latter writings, some of which then affected the christian canon. Further, there's the issue ARAMAIC WAS THE WORD, I'm 75% sure. The jewish and growths from judaism that the holy books for which were written in aramaic languages, specifically. The further issue is that the group you're referring to is after the jewish bible had been translated to and then from latin with some changes before becoming the OT that was used. This leads to the creation of Hell as a concept in place of the judaic afterlife, the integration of every hasatan into the singular Satan (name) due to the King Solomon passages, and a few minor and varying in importance translation issues. Though since this only included the OT and very earliest NT stories, it's not really worth a tangent and we've been over them before anyway. I believe one example, and correct me if I'm wrong, is the removal of the story of the death of Cain. As far as I'm aware, it was either not included in that compilation or was removed since then, and is a good example of such instances. Then came the issue of the apostle who I can never remember which one, who occasionally made up words which have then been translated with varying accuracy. Not a big issue, but surprisingly important in the issue of homosexuality as it is the only mention of it being wrong in the NT that was not a repeating of the OT, barring some variations like we're talking about.
But yes, if you consider the literary canon to begin at that compilation, then you'd have a strong case against many of my previous point in other discussions, since they occurred before that time and therefor you could consider to not be "christian canon," depending on the variant texts we're discussing.

"Early Church" in this context is everything up to the Council of Nicaea. The OT canon is based on Jewish acceptance of scripture beyond the Torah, so fortunately, that acceptance is rather stable.

I'm going to have to disageee with your assertions on changes made to the Old Testament. We have original Hebrew documents before Latin translations to cross-reference to determine accuracy. It is entirely possible that documents exist with this additional information, but it is significantly more likely that these are isolated corruptions of the original texts without evidence that they were the initial depiction of biblical texts. In fact, I have access to a collection of the original Hebrew documents as well as a direct word-by-word translation of those documents (which makes it difficult to read, but there is no translator interpretation at play). You have books such as the Book of Enoch with additional information, but these are not considered authentic documents that would be accepted by Jewish or Christian scholars.
I disagree with your interpretation of the biblical texts' stance on God's intention of human sexuality.
Before what compilation?
Your words suggest that the documents were heavily edited before being accepted into theological canon. As far as I am concerned, heavily edited documents have zero authority in regards to religious direction. If the current version of either Old or New Testament scripture (bearing in mind that this is referring to untranslated text) is not exactly the same as the original (other than minor variations in spelling and such minor discrepancies based on region), then for all intents and purposes, they are fictitious, fallible, and frankly not worth studying as evidence of historical or cultural information of the previous age. Can you provide any documentation that asserts or provides evidence for these supposedly heavily edited texts and reasons that historians do not tend to accept this as accurate?

Heyo

Heyo

What's up?

@DarkwolfX37

- So you start out completely incorrect. In my original comment, I specifically stated "Holds no restrictions on the formation of new forms of government within it, allowing for a workable society to form as necessary" as one of the benefits. How you can claim that I somehow believe that anarchy will remain such is beyond my understanding. You're trying to make a non-point. Like I said, trying to argue against anarchy because governments will form is not a point against anarchy, it is a condemnation of anything and everything else.

Well the very fact that anarchy will not stay is a part of the issue with anarchy. No matter if outside factors are responsible for it not staying for long, it still remains as an issue of compatibility between the system and humanity. Isn't that a problem on it's own? The system just doesn't go with humanity.

- No, it's not. That's a common misconception. The strongest aren't the ones in power, the most adaptable are. The way of nature is adaptation, not strength. Film Theory did a wonderful job explaining why your assumption is incorrect, though taking it to a massive extreme due to the context, so I'll leave it to that instead of trying to say it in a less effective way. The kind of people who would want to be tyrants are the type of people who cannot survive, let alone thrive and gain power, without social systems to manipulate. The people who have that sort of predisposition need a foothold that simply doesn't exist in anarchy in order to get power.

Well that theory makes a fair point but that is if you look at psychopaths and sociopaths as unable to pretend to care and form "relationships" then you are gravely mistaken. Lets say that because of an outside factor anarchy is stable and humans don't try to establish governments. During the first years, almost any big groups of people will be led by a sociopath/psychopath as also seen in the show. Now the point that is made in the theory is that those groups don't stick for long because the sociopath/psychopath can't connect with the group. Only using fear tactics and the sort to oppress people and keep them in check is bad in the long run. But couldn't they as well pretend to care? Couldn't they be more kind and form a connection with those that they keep close? The armed personnel? You can oppress the common people and the villagers and terrorize them while form a "connection" with your armed forces.

- That's also incorrect. The only differences between us and the next placers, wolves, bears, and apes, are our limb structure, communication systems, and lack of object-oriented thought processes. There are birds that can use smartphones, primates that can communicate through sign language, wolves have built a more stable and peaceful social structure than we have, and bears are able to quickly devise survival mechanisms for completely foreign environments. We seem superior because we are looking at our species from within it. It would take only a few simple changes for any other species to be in our place. We're lucky, not better.

Yeah and the difference between the rain and the skydivers is that rain is made entirely out of water and has a small mass. They are not better than the rain, they are just lucky to not be made entirely out of water. I mean, both skydivers and rain falls from the sky right?(Don't go into a lecture to specify from where the rain falls) Yeah, all animals excel at something that has helped them survive that long so what? Birds can fly and we can not, rhino beetles can carry many times their weight and we can not, hell even ants can carry many times their weight and we can't and your point is? "It would take only a few simple changes for any other species to be in our place."
Yeah, a few "simple" but BIG changes, forgot to add that there. In that sense anything can become anything with some changes.
We seem superior because we are looking at our species from within it. What? No, we are superior. Firstly, we can eradicate every living creature on earth and they can do nothing about it. Now if that is not a form of superiority then what is?

You also seem to have this idea that we are somehow above our genes. Everything we do, this very conversation, is dictated by how our genes have made us respond to the stimuli we have experienced and random chance. And while guided genetic alteration would be preferable to the natural genetic drift, it does not solve the problems of our species. I didn't mention natural selection only in reference to genetics; the effect that the loss of our current systems would have and the effect that a daily fight for survival would have is the more beneficial factor. It's because we no longer are affected by natural selection that we have gotten to the point where we have thoroughly corrupted every social system that has been created to date. That separation is beneficial to the individual human, if they are lucky in terms of where they are born, but it is harmful to the species and its future.

I didn't say that we are above our genes, I meant that we are intellectually developed enough to understand them and with time, hopefully, change them. Being above our genes is being above ourselves? By controlling our genes we can control and shape ourselves. Now this will be possible in the future if humanity survives long enough.

"but it is harmful to the species and its future" You don't know that, you can't see the future. You can predict based on how things are going to where the race is headed but you can't definitively say that it is harmful for the future of humanity.

- Exactly. The philosophical "circle of hatred" is the point. Either there will be people who can end that chain, therefor better than those before them, or those groups will wipe each other out and lackluster people will be removed from the whole. This is a benefit, not a problem. To point to a wonderful example in fiction, the Uchihas in Naruto fit. The only way the group survived at all is that there were three who became better than the others. If they had all continued to be violent and self-destructive, then they would have died out and with them would die the conflict and poisonous factors that made them the way they were. It's very much an issue of adapt or die, simply on a scale of multiple organisms.

Yeah but how many did the Uchihas kill during the war and after before the clan died leaving only one behind? I can't say that those who they killed were innocent but they could as well be in anarchy. How many should die fighting these murderess who have no place in anarchy before they finally die out? Yes, it is for the greater good that some people should lay their lives fighting but what about the individual itself? Is it fair to him? You might still say that his life is inconsequential for the betterment of humanity as a whole but what if it was you who was that individual? Would you lay your life knowing that you would be doing humanity a favor while fighting?

- Why should it matter what the current generation thinks? Like you said, it doesn't care about the future generations. That is a factor that should be removed, and would be affected by the return of natural selection. When humans once again have to risk their own lives for the sake of their offspring, rather than simply invest time if even that in them, care for coming generations will increase. I see no reason why the current generation should receive special treatment over any other.

There I was taking into consideration both the effects of anarchy to humanity and to the individual itself. But as you stated above "That separation is beneficial to the individual human, if they are lucky in terms of where they are born, but it is harmful to the species and its future."

- The purpose of showing that it does not exist is to show that it is an unnecessary and in fact harmful factor in transactions. What dictates how much of a currency something is worth? The same thing that dictates what object would be comparative for it. Simply take the fact that multiple currencies exist in mind. The "value" of a currency changes constantly. A bottle of water costs more now than twenty years ago, but the subjective value that someone would place on that bottle of water has not changed. The same person in the same situation would value it the same regardless of what monetary value others placed on it. The problem with currency is that it has neither value nor use. Trading in rocks would be an improvement, because at least rocks can be used. There is a placeholder for value on it. If tomorrow the world's currency finally crashed, the fact that it is imaginary would no longer be some vague thing to not worry about. The more currency you had, the higher your loss would be when the species realized that it has no use and therefor no reason to assign their subjective worths to it. If you and I both had ten gallons of drinkable water, and you sold yours for 1000 dollars via check, and I sold mine for 1000 dollars in cash, we would be losing something with use for something without use, in my case, and for something that flat out doesn't exist in your case. This is why "the gold standard" is wrong, because the only use gold has is in relatively advanced technology, which the average person cannot use it for. Trade boils down to the subjective value of survival necessities: food, drink, shelter materials, and time. Currency removes that subjective value and replaces it with an unenforceable assumption that you have something of equal subjective value. It is simply a hope, and hope has no subjective value. This is a roundabout way of saying it, but the short of it is simply that using currency makes everything valueless, rather than keeping everything valued at what it can do for an individual

Nothing to enforce the value you say? Well let's say that currency is the same all around the world and everything has the same price based on which product would logically cost more, which is more essential to humanity. Isn't currency better, as I have established in my previous sentence, then simple trading of items? Anarchy will never stay anyway, we are already assuming what if it would* stay so why can't we assume that everyone in the world would use the same currency with fair transaction rates to buy items? It is more efficient that way isn't it? Using currency in the scenario that I described.

- How do you think that society formed? Do you believe that humans grew to use and further develop tools without the greatest local minds working together for a common interest? Mutual survival is what drives advancement the fastest, not economic development nor the simple pursuit of knowledge, however much we may wish otherwise.

Yeah but how long did that take? How long did that technological advancement take compared to how much we have advanced this past decade alone? Do you really believe that we would advance at the same right we are advancing now in the technological department? This is my key problem with anarchy.

- Just like any other species, humans should not be simply allowed to go extinct. That is why I advocate returning natural selection. It is the best chance at long term survival for the species. To poison the body to kill the cancer and allow the damaged body to slowly recover. Even if the majority will die out, the majority are horrible regardless. The good will die out too, but those to come later will have a higher chance of being good, and this will only expound. If it fails to do so, then humanity will die out as a whole, but at least then it wouldn't be taking out all the rest of the species on the planet with it, and at least it would have a chance rather than simply suffocating itself out of its own stupidity.

That's your personal opinion and an abstract thought that doesn't matter. Humanity can die 100 times over as long as anyone not human(evens some humans) cares and it wouldn't make any difference to anything outside of planet earth. I mean logically, why should humanity live at all? You are using logic as a tool to present your idea of a solution to something you wish, that is anarchy for humanity or even for humanity to survive. But that all changes depending on what a person wishes. Isn't self gratification also a wish and do not most, if not all people, try to achieve it?
Logically fueled by your desires for how humanity should live, it still isn't the best logical option based on one fact, you don't know the future, you can't do the simulation. You might predict that it holds the highest possibility for humanity to survive longer and evolve but you don't know that will definitely happen. In 500 years time we could have sufficient technology to colonize some of the planets of the solar system. This only made possible by the raid technological developments that wouldn't be possible if there was anarchy.

@Webmaster
A lot. I'm not in the navy anymore.

@Webmaster
A lot. I'm not in the navy anymore.

How does it feel?

@Webmaster
Stressfull.

@Webmaster
Stressfull.

Really? Why is that?

today, I must bake two whole batches of brownies
we're doing a fundraiser for the internship which has incurred extra unexpected costs
also on wednesday I never told you guys about that summer discipleship program
We started with a few of us leading worship. One of us got off key on the second song and we couldn't recover, so we kept on through and ended after, but the spirit of the Lord remained through the song and it was okay. Then we split off into groups, each intern leading a few kids in a group prayer.
Afterwards, we had lunch and then worked. I was washing windows with one other person, and he and I had a pretty fun argument on the proper punishment for crime. He's a lot smarter than I thought he was, and we were able to bounce ideas off of each other until we syllogistically came to a shared conclusion based off of Biblical principles. I got to talk to him about regularly reading the Bible, too, and now I have something to pray for concerning him.
It turned out the squeegee we were using was bad, so we gathered up a lot of the other kids who had finished their work and used a different method to get it all done. Halfway through, we reached a set of windows that looked clean, and one person suggested skipping it. I was tempted, but I ended up getting to disciple them on working to the fullest extent, unto God, not unto men, and we all ended up enjoying the job even more. It was a pretty fruitful day, I'd say.

oh and one of the batches of brownies is frosted
and they are both filled with dark chocolate chips
sorry but none of you can have it because you don't live in california even though it's worst state

@whizzball1

>I had a pretty fun argument on the proper punishment for crime.

Clearly death is the only answer.

@whizzball1 How do you know hell is real? Even if it is mentioned in the bible, how do you know HE didn't lie? As any parent lies to their children that The Spook will come to those who suck their thumb, God could have followed the same logic. I mean what do you get by creating a realm made to torture a person? They will never get out of it, even if they change in there it doesn't matter, it is their final destination once decided.

@Webmaster
I think he meant on the...specific torture those who have committed the crime get in hell...

@Bishop

He's talking about actual physical laws and punishments. I was just joking.

However, I disagree that every parent lies to their children. I consider t wrong to do so in any capacity (not that I want kids though). If you're asking how we can trust that God is telling the truth, the answer (assuming we believe God exists) is that we have no other choice. Against a being with literally infinite power, knowledge, and pretty much everything else, thinking that he's lying pretty much only leads to a dead end. What do you do at that point? But since there's no reason to believe that God is a liar, why bother contemplating what we would do if he were a liar? In that situation; there's literally nothing anyone can do about it, so it ends up being a very nihilistic "you technically can't disprove this even if there's no evidence that it's true."

Also, do you have any questions/comments/etc. about that last long discussion?

@Webmaster With Meta or Darkwolf?

I agree that nothing comes from believing he is a liar. Cause that is the actual point right? He can say anything and we have to believe it. I was just entertaining the thought of what if*. We have no way of proving that what He said is a lie so we just believe it. But I just believe that it is a lot more understandable if he only used "Hell" as the name of anon existent place to keep us in check.

@Bishop

With me, yes.

The issue with the idea that he lies to keep us in check is that it goes against the very nature of God. From the information we have, it would be more reasonable to assume that heaven is a lie and that everyone goes to Hell. But still, Occam's Razor states that this isn't true. Either way, I'd be much more fearful under a deity who lies at all than under one who sends people to Hell, because that removes all assurance that I have any safety whatsoever. Who is to say that he won't let us live a year in heaven and throw us all into the dirt? It's just a fruitless position to take.

@Meta First of all, nobody knows the nature of God. We can assume his nature by his interactions with humans and the actions of those humans carried on behalf of him, yes, but ultimately no one knows. And yes, it is better to assume that he is telling the truth but still no one knows that.

And this puzzles me, how is it more reasonable that he lies about heaven and not hell. From a purely objective perspective, imagining you are outside of the human race, what is the profit of torturing humans? They are just another sentient species, so do you get something of value when you torture them eternally? It yields no results. Saying that hell exists, even if it doesn't, is the same as it really existing since no one returns from the dead. Now, if the effect of just claiming that hell exists is the same as it actually existing, why bother making one?

Heaven on the other hand, is a place for the purest. I believe, if we say that God exists, that he devised earth as a test to find those with the purest spirit to stand beside him in heaven. Maybe we are already in "hell", our spirits failed the test and we are doomed to recycle our lives on this Earth. Maybe the test is already over and we are what remains.

@Bishop

I mean, I could also say that about your hair color. We know within reasonable doubt what the nature of God is.

Replace "Hell" with "Heaven" and the argument remains the same. He didn't have to create anything, but I suspect that he'd be more inclined to destroy a corrupted creation than to give it prosperity, like in the program analogy.

If this is Hell, I'm not complaining; it's pretty cool. But my point is that conjecture like "What if God is tricking us" is similar to "What if I'm in a coma and my life is false?" It's technically a logical possibility but it isn't exactly a fruitful discussion to have.