If God was proven to exist... what would happen?

[MavsSuperFan]

Don't be rediculous. Theres no implication of that. Use common sense. The scripture plainly states that the woman would be put to death FOR NOT CRYING OUT. It says nothing to the effect of her crying out and not being heard.

IF no one hears a woman crying out, how do you prove she cried out?

The bible instructs authorities to believe a woman who accuses a man of raping her if she is raped outside of a city.
The assumption is in a crowded city if a woman doesn't cry out, (or isnt heard crying out) she must have wanted it.
Dont be mad at me that your bible is ridiculous

[MavsSuperFan]

Theres no need to lie or stretch the truth. You are totally distorting what that scripture says as far as the penalty for rape. Here it is just to set you straight.
"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces (i.e. rapes) her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.*26*But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.*27*When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her."

This scripture plainly shows there is no penalty for a woman who is raped.

Now there was a penaly for a woman who ALLOWS herself to be taken freely (thus she wouldn't be crying out for help)

“If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and*another*man finds her in the city and lies with her,*24*then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them*[n]to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

And in this case both are to be put to death. There is nothing wrong with either of these scriptures.

Now if your argument is that of culture, that has nothing to do with Gods word. In that culture, women were fine with being given to men in marriage. And once received the man had a huge responsibility to care for her. And see that her needs were met.

The bible basically argues that it would be unreasonable to expect a woman raped in a field to be heard screaming, so if no one heard her scream while being raped, the authorities should still believe her when she says she was raped.

The bible also argues that in a crowded city, if no one heard a woman scream while being raped, she obviously didnt scream and thus wanted it. THus she should be stoned to death. The problem with the second scripture is it creates the requirement that the woman be heard screaming, for the rape to have occurred

The interpretation that those 2 scriptures taken together create a situation where many women would be stoned to death for being raped is not much of a leap.

[ILLsmak]

[QUOTE=Budadiiii]If god is proven to exist what would happen?

Lets just assume for a moment that God/Allah whatever you wish to call it is found. I mean concrete proof of a being with inconceivable power that is responsible for creating us. Also heaven is found with him. A physical place within human reach. Do you think in time people would grow to hate it and possibly consider it an enemy of mankind? Think about this for a minute. A creature beyond your understanding comes to earth. Tells you what to do and how to live your life with his only reason being "Because I said so" and anyone who doesn

[97 bulls]

The bible basically argues that it would be unreasonable to expect a woman raped in a field to be heard screaming, so if no one heard her scream while being raped, the authorities should still believe her when she says she was raped.

The bible also argues that in a crowded city, if no one heard a woman scream while being raped, she obviously didnt scream and thus wanted it. THus she should be stoned to death. The problem with the second scripture is it creates the requirement that the woman be heard screaming, for the rape to have occurred

The interpretation that those 2 scriptures taken together create a situation where many women would be stoned to death for being raped is not much of a leap.

You keep ADDING things bro. It does not say that if a woman screams and no on hears her that she is just as guilty. Why assume that unless you're intentionally trying to find something wrong. Just take it for what it says.

If this is your only means for questioning the bible, then you really ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[97 bulls]

The bible basically argues that it would be unreasonable to expect a woman raped in a field to be heard screaming, so if no one heard her scream while being raped, the authorities should still believe her when she says she was raped.

The bible also argues that in a crowded city, if no one heard a woman scream while being raped, she obviously didnt scream and thus wanted it. THus she should be stoned to death. The problem with the second scripture is it creates the requirement that the woman be heard screaming, for the rape to have occurred

The interpretation that those 2 scriptures taken together create a situation where many women would be stoned to death for being raped is not much of a leap.

You keep ADDING things bro. It does not say that if a woman screams and no on hears her that she is just as guilty. Why assume that unless you're intentionally trying to find something wrong. Just take it for what it says.

If this is your only means for questioning the bible, then you really ought to be ashamed of yourself.

[Dresta]

I see your point bro. But in general, people dont allow their rage to get the best of them to the point of murder. And it's not very common that a murder is committed due to a person not having a choice.

Im not gonna sit here and debate exceptions to a rule. People with mental problems that have committed heinous acts dont recieve the same result as a person that understands what theyre doing.

And I do agree that our character is greatly shaped based on what we've seen, how we are raised etc. But one doesn't HAVE TO conform to that. Most people born in a poor part of town don't end up being criminals. They have choices. To answer your question, human beings make bad choices because we've left God. We aren't perfect. There is a reason as to why God has instructed us to refrain from these bad things. Because it hurts others.

I honestly feel we are saying the same thing.

Once again: one can only rebel against one's nature if it is in one's nature to do so. Human beings make 'bad' or 'evil' choices because they are bad or evil human beings, and were made that way by God. If people have left God then that is because God has created them to do so.

Anyway, God hasn't instructed us to 'refrain from these bad things' - religious morality imposes doctrinaire morality from the top down that prevents the evolution of morals (see Middle Ages and how limited progress was until Luther came and diluted the power of the Catholic church). For morals to develop, conventional morality has to be broken by individuals. Thus for the progression of morality 'evils' must be committed, and the future 'good' is often born out of what was deemed evil in the past.

(for example, it was once considered the height of evildoing to translate the bible so it could be read and understood by the laity, and if no one had been willing to take that burden upon himself, break with convention, and commit this 'evil' then you would most likely never have had direct access to the book you so treasure)

It is proven lol. I've been thinking about this stuff a lot lately, but I just listened to some speech by Gandhi on YouTube where he says that the presence of something, that is felt as more 'real' than reality is impossible to ignore. Of course, he goes on to talk about God's benevolence. I would like to think that God is a benevolent entity, but...

If God is God then God does what God wants. Good and evil is defined by God.

I'm just speaking to the 'unbreakable laws.' Order, etc. It is definitely proven to me. Can I prove it to someone else? I could if they wanted to know. But most people are stuck in a loop of "God isn't real." And they would never be able to get out of it and think about things my way.

It's not like someone is gonna have a picture of God. Dude if someone had a 15 minute camphone video of GOD, talking to God and everything... I bet you half of the world would think it was a hoax. Because of that, it'll never be 'proven' the way you think.

-Smak

Where do you get this crap from? Of course if someone recorded something they called 'God' on their 'camphone' then people would think it was a hoax. It's a fuggin camphone man; what does God need human technology for? Are you so sure of your belief because you saw Bruce Almighty or something?

[Shade8780]

God = #1
You = ISH
ISH = #1
You = God

PROOF!

636 posts and full rep? I sense alt accounts.

[KingBeasley08]

636 posts and full rep? I sense alt accounts.

That same poster had the nerve to call me an alt

[JohnStarks]

I believe God gave me allergies because he knew without them I'd be too much of a real nigguh.

[97 bulls]

Once again: one can only rebel against one's nature if it is in one's nature to do so. Human beings make 'bad' or 'evil' choices because they are bad or evil human beings, and were made that way by God. If people have left God then that is because God has created them to do so.

Anyway, God hasn't instructed us to 'refrain from these bad things' - religious morality imposes doctrinaire morality from the top down that prevents the evolution of morals (see Middle Ages and how limited progress was until Luther came and diluted the power of the Catholic church). For morals to develop, conventional morality has to be broken by individuals. Thus for the progression of morality 'evils' must be committed, and the future 'good' is often born out of what was deemed evil in the past.

(for example, it was once considered the height of evildoing to translate the bible so it could be read and understood by the laity, and if no one had been willing to take that burden upon himself, break with convention, and commit this 'evil' then you would most likely never have had direct access to the book you so treasure)

This goes back free will and Adam and Eve and love. Many wonder, why did God implement the Tree of Knowledge of good and bad? Why wouldn't he just make it so that mankind was invulnerable to sin. The answer is as I stated earlier. In order to have true love, you must have free will. The ability to choose to love. Our first parents decision (cuz thats what it was), has been passed down to us.


God has been instructing us since Adam and Eve. As far as mankinds evolution, I think it greatly depends on who you talk to. In some ways the evolution of mankind has benefited us greatly. In other ways, its hurt us. Humans today are extremely lazy. As a whole, we are in terrible physical shape, selfish, our children are disobedient, our men are irresponsible, our women aren't the nurturers they used to be. And I attribute this to what you call evolution.

[Dresta]

This goes back free will and Adam and Eve and love. Many wonder, why did God implement the Tree of Knowledge of good and bad? Why wouldn't he just make it so that mankind was invulnerable to sin. The answer is as I stated earlier. In order to have true love, you must have free will. The ability to choose to love. Our first parents decision (cuz thats what it was), has been passed down to us.


God has been instructing us since Adam and Eve. As far as mankinds evolution, I think it greatly depends on who you talk to. In some ways the evolution of mankind has benefited us greatly. In other ways, its hurt us. Humans today are extremely lazy. As a whole, we are in terrible physical shape, selfish, our children are disobedient, our men are irresponsible, our women aren't the nurturers they used to be. And I attribute this to what you call evolution.

Adam and Eve is a fairy tale bro. An eloquent and poetic one, i grant you that, but the story is in direct contradiction to so much archeological evidence that i don't know how anyone can claim it as true.

As for the latter, well, i think that has nothing to do at all with the evolution of morals and humanity, and everything to do with the modern state, and its supplanting of God as the director of all human endeavours, as the distributor of fortunes and favours (basically this is what socialism is - faith in the state replacing faith in God) and as the father figure hovering over a nation of children who need to be coddled and protected from themselves at all times. We have artificially bred dependency, indolence and mediocrity, and that is completely a result of our interference with the evolutionary process, but has nothing to do with the process in and of itself. We have created a nation of sheep with the state as its shepherd.

But then there is a certain inevitability about the whole process: once human beings achieve a certain standard of living and political power they will always clamour selfishly to be given more while doing less. People are lazy today not because of the absence of God, but because our prosperity and self-satisfaction has afforded them the opportunity to be lazy. It wasn't that long ago that if you didn't work yourself to the bone you and your family might well suffer extinction. An abundance of wealth always will and always has encouraged laziness. Why do you think most of the booming industries and technologies are in areas that solely exist as a means to fritter away our time in vapid exercises of pointlessness. But i can't see that being a valid argument as to why we should all remain poor or return to nature a la Rousseau.

edit: also, about love: love is the opposite of free will, it is a feeling you either have or you do not have and which you certainly do not choose. Love completely bypasses the rational part of the brain, and is actually a form of dependancy not unlike a drug addiction (though usually healthier and more fulfilling, but certainly not always so: it is often extremely destructive).

[Kblaze8855]

Did I misunderstand or are people in this topic claiming there is proof of god?

[97 bulls]

Adam and Eve is a fairy tale bro. An eloquent and poetic one, i grant you that, but the story is in direct contradiction to so much archeological evidence that i don't know how anyone can claim it as true.

As for the latter, well, i think that has nothing to do at all with the evolution of morals and humanity, and everything to do with the modern state, and its supplanting of God as the director of all human endeavours, as the distributor of fortunes and favours (basically this is what socialism is - faith in the state replacing faith in God) and as the father figure hovering over a nation of children who need to be coddled and protected from themselves at all times. We have artificially bred dependency, indolence and mediocrity, and that is completely a result of our interference with the evolutionary process, but has nothing to do with the process in and of itself. We have created a nation of sheep with the state as its shepherd.

But then there is a certain inevitability about the whole process: once human beings achieve a certain standard of living and political power they will always clamour selfishly to be given more while doing less. People are lazy today not because of the absence of God, but because our prosperity and self-satisfaction has afforded them the opportunity to be lazy. It wasn't that long ago that if you didn't work yourself to the bone you and your family might well suffer extinction. An abundance of wealth always will and always has encouraged laziness. Why do you think most of the booming industries and technologies are in areas that solely exist as a means to fritter away our time in vapid exercises of pointlessness. But i can't see that being a valid argument as to why we should all remain poor or return to nature a la Rousseau.

I can't really disagree with you Dres. The way I see it, your biggest gripe is that you feel evolution and religion clash. I just dont see it that way. And we differ on the beginning of man. I really dont see how your view is any more tangible as mine. Both revolve around faith.

[Dresta]

I can't really disagree with you Dres. The way I see it, your biggest gripe is that you feel evolution and religion clash. I just dont see it that way. And we differ on the beginning of man. I really dont see how your view is any more tangible as mine. Both revolve around faith.

Well, i think evolution (which is evidence based) and your idea of the beginning of man (which is a faith based one) are self-evidently contradictory. But i certainly don't think personal religion interferes with evolution, it is of course a natural part of it. I just don't think religions should use the power of the state to enforce their morality onto all in the corporeal world, because their domain is in the spiritual world, and churches combined with political power has always been a recipe for disaster, as the theoretical founders of the United States well knew from their meticulous study of history. I think a man should be answerable to his own conscience and his own view of good and evil first and foremost, provided the rules of inter-personal conduct are maintained. The state came into being as an institution for protecting one individual from another, but the more it is ennobled, the wider its scope (and allowing the enforcement of moral doctrine through law greatly enhances this), the more the individual is suffocated and dissolved into the mass, and thus the [I]raison d'

[GimmeThat]

We would not be able to duplicate life and minds (soul) completely.


wait...