Masturbation

[runner's high]

Sophisticated, sure, but I think he missed the joke / the point. If God is a "life-form beyond comprehension" there's no way he'd be a "he". He'd be genderless.

[TheRiz]

Well God definatley has the fastest internet connection ever so he could download so much porn so fast.

[Rasta_Man]

Originally Posted by runner's high

Sophisticated, sure, but I think he missed the joke / the point. If God is a "life-form beyond comprehension" there's no way he'd be a "he". He'd be genderless.

In lieu of another pronoun

Jabba the Hutt was a hemaphrodite but everbody seems to think hes a guy.

[youngandstupid]

That Jabba was one sexy beast. Hrm all this talk about masturbation, and now Jabba, I .... um... have something ... I need... to um.... do the dishes!

[flower_child]

Hmm...are you sure masturbation is the best thing to base a belief in God upon?

Let's say that God does indeed look like any other man. Let's go even further to say that he does, indeed, have a penis. How does that mean that he masturbates and therefore all God-based religion is wrong?

For one thing, there are plenty of men out there who simply don't masturbate. Even so, masturbation is the result of lust. Lust is a sin, and God is not bound by sin. He does not partake in sinful acts. Sin and God have no relationship whatsoever. Therefore, even if God was a normal man just like you and I, He'd be one that doesn't masturbate.

[PitThugZ]

well all this talk about *ahem* make me want to *cough* so off to show God what i can create

[TheRiz]

Clearly flowerchild you're not getting the intrinsically sarcastic nature of this thread. O, and lust isn't a 'sin', it's called natural attraction and desire, built into us all as an instinct to insure reproduction.

[runner's high]

What Riz said. And I'd like to add:

Originally Posted by flower_child

there are plenty of men out there who simply don't masturbate

OK. Now give them an eternity.

Originally Posted by flower

Sin and God have no relationship whatsoever.

Oh, but they do. God defines what is sinful, and therefore "sin" can't exist without him. What's more, God created us, and we commit sin, therefore God created--or at least enabled--all acts we call sinful.

Originally Posted by flower_child

God is not bound by sin. He does not partake in sinful acts.

God killed committed genocide dozens of times in the Old Testament. Last time I checked killing is a sin, and if I had to guess, I'd say it's worse than masturbating.

Hoo boy, this should get interesting...

[youngandstupid]

*puts on devil's advocate suit*

Originally Posted by runner's high

What Riz said. And I'd like to add:


OK. Now give them an eternity.

Assuming they are unics(sp?), since I refuse to believe there is a guy out there who doesn't orgasm unless they are a unic, I doubt even with an eternity they would "whack it"

Originally Posted by runner's high

Oh, but they do. God defines what is sinful, and therefore "sin" can exist without him. What's more, God created us, and we commit sin, therefore God created--or at least enabled--all acts we call sinful.

Sin can't exist without God since sin involves cognition and without God nothing would exist and thus nothing would have cognition and without cognition there can't be sin.

Originally Posted by runner's high

God killed committed genocide dozens of times in the Old Testament. Last time I checked killing is a sin, and if I had to guess, I'd say it's worse than masturbating.

God's is omnipotent meaning his knowledge and intelligence are infinite. As human beings our knowledge and intellegence are limited. So in essence, our intelligence is X and God's is X^n and n = infinite. A more real world example would be humans compared to bacteria in terms of intelligence. So in the end God has a reason for everything including mercilessly slaughtering millions of people or instructing his followers to lie to a tribe to make them circumsize(sp?) themselves and then for God's followers to slaughter all the men and male children and make slaves of the women. The 10 commandments are sorta like the rules you give your 2 year old. Like don't drive daddy's car or drink daddy's alchohol or have hit on Mark Foley. When the child grows older and matures in body and mind it can then do those things. God is your daddy and you're a 2 year old.

*removes suit*

phew that's hard.

[hozomeen]

Originally Posted by runner's high

Ah, then why is "He" a "he"?

Shouldn't God be an "It"? Or perhaps a new pronoun altogether?

perhaps because it comes from a book filled with flaws and inadequate explanations?

[flower_child]

Ok, maybe I didn't think this thread was being sarcastic. But either way, this type of talk does cause me to get a bit offended and therefore brings me to respond.

You act like God created sin, but this isn't really the case. Sin is only possible through the knowledge of good and evil that Satan caused man to gain in the Garden of Eden. Without that knowledge, even if you had done something that would be considered sinful (though I can't really imagine what it would have been) it would have been like when a six month old screams and cries in church. A six month old doesn't know any better. It doesn't know the difference between good and evil.

If you read the Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy) you'll understand why God commanded the Jews to overthrow other cities. But regardless of whether or not you agree with that, it is not right for you to take it out of context and say "God commited Genocide", because that simply isn't true.

I believe in understanding both sides of the argument. And I believe that if you're going to accuse God of these things, and go as far as to use scripture to back up your claims, you need to read the Bible first, and see how everything works in it's context.

Edit: And Riz, yes, Lust is a sin. Natural attraction does insure reproduction, and natural attraction is not a bad thing. But there is a line between attraction and lust, and I'm talking about the lust side of that line.

[youngandstupid]

Originally Posted by flower_child

You act like God created sin, but this isn't really the case. Sin is only possible through the knowledge of good and evil that Satan caused man to gain in the Garden of Eden. Without that knowledge, even if you had done something that would be considered sinful (though I can't really imagine what it would have been) it would have been like when a six month old screams and cries in church. A six month old doesn't know any better. It doesn't know the difference between good and evil.

This brings up a very interesting question that I've been pondering for a while. If Adam and Eve were without knowledge of good and evil and therefore could not commit evil why were they punished for eating the apple. Yes God said not to but they couldn't have known disobeying God was wrong unless they knew what wrong was, which they don't. Like you said, a 6 month old doesn't know good or evil so for a parent to hit it or condemn it feeling pain and all of its children will be cursed as well is, in a sense, evil. How is God any different in this case. God punched a crying baby. Just exchanged punched with all the curses he put on men and women forever, and baby with Adam and Eve.

Originally Posted by flower_child

If you read the Torah (Genesis through Deuteronomy) you'll understand why God commanded the Jews to overthrow other cities. But regardless of whether or not you agree with that, it is not right for you to take it out of context and say "God commited Genocide", because that simply isn't true.

I would say the flood that killed all of mankind except for 1 family is genocide.

[flower_child]

Since Genocide is the mass killing of people based soley on their race or ethinticity, God has done nothing that fits that criteria. Genocide is ethnic cleansing.

As for why Adam and Eve were punished, they didn't have a knowledge of "Good & Evil", but they did know beyond any shadow of a doubt that God said not to eat the fruit of that tree, whether it was wrong or not.

Before I go any further, I want to say that this is a very good question. I don't know what word to use to describe how I feel about it...but in some way I'm glad you asked. It's just such a reasonable question.

Your parents tell you not to drink alcohol until your a certain age. That age may not be the age the law says; they may allow it when they feel you are mature enough. Drinking alcohol isn't wrong, but it's not in any way a good thing to do until you are of age.

God punished them for directly disobeying his very clear commandment. Even without the concept of good and evil, they knew what God had said and they knew to obey him.

[youngandstupid]

What if you consider a person's ethnicity based on their beliefs (Hitler ethnicly cleansed the Jews for example and that is considered genocide). How was God different in that sense. He simply killed everyone but those who had the right beliefs.

Yeah but they didn't know disobeying a direct order was wrong. You can tell the baby to do something (assuming it magically understands English yet retains its inability to determine right from wrong) the baby should not be punished for still doing the thing you told it not to do. It didn't know it was wrong to disobey so it isn't wrong in doing exactly that. We only know that disobeying is wrong because we understand what wrong is.

Edit: I can't take credit for the question since I read it on another forum, but it is intriguing none the less.

[flower_child]

I think there's a difference between a "knowledge of good and evil" and a knowledge of obeying what your creator tells you to. There are certain things that even a baby knows by instinct. Adam and Eve knew without the knowledge of good and evil (or right and wrong, but I'm thinking there's a slight difference) that it was wrong to disobey God.

For the record, I think you took my analogy just a bit too literally.

As for the killing, you really have to read the Torah to understand what's going on. I struggled with it for a long time as well. When I actually buckled down and started reading the Bible, it was like a hundred lightbulbs went off in my head. But I'll still try to explain.

The idea was for the Jews to inherit the land that was promised to them through the covenant made with Abraham, Issac and Jacob. In reading the Torah, you'll see that following God's commands was a very very important thing to God. He had freed them from their oppression and promised to deliver them to a land "flowing with milk and honey." He wanted them to be pure and clean. He wanted them to be holy, and to be the best example to all mankind. The Jews are God's chosen people, and he wanted that to be completely obvious through their everyday lives. He wanted them to be sinless. So the point of destroying the occupants of the land they were going to was so that they would not fall back into sin. God did not want them to be corrupted by the people who were living in those lands. He did not want them to "worship gods that neither you nor your father's have known."
So basically, the idea was to remove any and all bad influences.

Another reason for this was that God wanted to show what the Jews were capable of with God strengthening them. God wanted the world to see that since the Jews followed Him wholeheartedly, they were indestructable.
God was setting an example. If you look at history, you'll see that in those times, such acts were considered great. It showed power and strength. It was the best way for the world of that age to understand God's power. It was how they would understand that there is no one that can compare to God; no power greater than or even equal to Him.

But like I said, to fully understand what's going on, you have to read the Torah. It also helps greatly to have a basic understanding of cultures of that age, and what they would relate to. You have to understand that what we look back on as atrocity, they looked at as majesty. You'll notice that many kings and leaders of that age were great conquerors as well. God was showing that he was "King of kings" in the best way that the world could relate to.

*edit* I want to put on the record that I don't feel good about saying "this is God's reason for doing this." What I've said here is the conclusion I've drawn from reading the Bible and from having a knowledge of history. I've spent a great deal of time praying about this, and this is what I feel is the right conclusion. It makes complete sense to me. Like I said, it's like lightbulbs going off in your head. I feel like this is God's explanation to me about his actions, because I have asked him what his purpose could possibly have been for having people killed like that. But I want the record to show that I am not a prophet and I do not have authority to say what God's purpose for his actions is.

*double edit* also, I'm going to bed, so I won't respond till tomorrow.