Hand-to-hand weapons aren't the best choice. If the zombie-disease is spread by saliva (bites), it's probably also spread by blood. If you hack a zombie apart with a sword, it will spray its blood everywhere. You get that in any open wound, or even your eye, and you're a zombie.
Bow and arrow would be better, as it has both range and unlimited ammo (you can recover the arrows)
I love the link. But, as for the argument, hard books are better for now. E-book technology is still in infancy, and while there's no reason it shouldn't improve, there are still downfalls.
First, eBooks are the epitome of "putting all your eggs in one basket". If something happens to your device, it gets hacked, lost, broken, stolen, etc., you've lost all your books. Not so with real books.
Second, along the same lines. If the eBook device screen is damaged, but not enough to get a Warranty repair, then every single page of every single book you have is also damaged. If you rip/mark a real book page, it's only one page of hundreds or even thousands.
Third. This is more of an opinion, but there's nothing quite as satisfying as turning that final page, or watching your progress eat through a large book. Sure, there are percentage bars on Kindle (at least), but it's not the same.
Fourth. Also along those same lines. It's easier to find quotes in real books, as you know generally where the quote was in the book. On eReaders, you can't flip pages nearly as fast as in real life to search. Also, due to the convenient font size changes available, pages look different every time on eReaders.
-----
That's my opinion. I'll admit, eBooks are much better for people who travel frequently (multiple times a month, or even a week), as they don't have to carry a library around with them if they need to read. Also, text formats offer the advantage of string searching, allowing for quick look-ups if you know a direct or partial quote.
But, to me, those advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages they have over real books.
Keeping on-task with said present distractions are part of the process of becoming a competent adult. You can't just take out homework because it doesn't apply to the work ethic of our students. Students need to change their work ethic to apply to the real world.
I personally don't want to time travel, due to the mind-bending implications. (You go back in time to kill Hitler, and it works. Then, in the alternate now, Hitler did't kill people, and thus, you wouldn't go back in time to kill him....)
If you want a long-living pet, get a turtle or a parrot. The turtle will definitely outlive you, while the parrot will give you a run for your money.
"However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows."
--Matthew 24:36 (NLT)
However much calculations anybody does, you cannot figure our the day of the Advent. Also, the idea of a 'secret rapture' is refuted by the Bible:
"For as the lightning flashes in the east and shines to the west, so it will be when the Son of Man comes."
--Matthew 24:27 (NLT)
"Look! He comes with the clouds of heaven. And everyone will see him"
--Revelation 1:7 (NLT)
"Then I saw heaven opened, and a white horse was standing there.... He wore a robe dipped in blood, and his title was the Word of God.... From his mouth came a sharp sword to strike down the nations.... On his robe at his thigh was written this title: King of all kings and Lord of all lords.... Then I saw the beast and the kings of the world and their armies gathered together to fight against the one sitting on the horse and his army.... Their entire army was killed by the sharp sword that came from the mouth of the one riding the white horse."
--Revelation 19:11-21 (NLT)
The first two refute the 'secret' rapture. The third shows that Jesus Himself will come down to finish everything. No rapture, and the Advent certainly won't be a secret.
-----
Now, to pre-refute future arguments, here's another quote:
"People didn't realize what was going to happen until the flood came and swept them all away. That is the way it will be when the Son of Man comes.
"Two men will be working together in the field; one will be taken, the other left. Two women will be grinding flour at the mill; one will be taken, the other left."
--Matthew 24:39-41
This isn't the rapture. It's equating the Advent with the Flood. Nobody knew when it was going to happen, and the Flood surprised everyone. Jesus is saying it'll be the same with the Advent: you're working in a field and, all of the sudden, Jesus is here.
Surprise!
Kotzebue, AK
That town is literally in the middle of nowhere, half of it on a swamp, the other half on the Bering Sea. It's cold all year long, and most likely freezes every night.
Unless zombies (or anyone else, for that matter) have antifreeze in their blood, there's no way they'd reach Kotzebue via walking.
"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)"
--Romans 2:14, 15
I'm not sure if anyone will read this, but I certainly hope so.
By saying 'no', I'm not saying they won't be in heaven. Nobody will get to heaven 'first'. Everyone goes at the same time. The closest thing we have to 'getting there first' is being the first off the ground.
"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air"
--1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17
As for athiests being in heaven, there most certainly will be.
"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)"
--Romans 2:14, 15
Or, as C. S. Lewis put it: "Therefore if any man swear by Tash (Satan) and keep his oath for the oaths sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him."
I'm not saying that any cliff is deadly to jump off of. I've done my fair share of leaping for 15- to 20-foot-high cliffs, but those falls are quite short (and still hurt if you hit flat-footed). But when you're talking about a 20-second fall, there's no way you'd survive that.
For the sake of this particular discussion, I'd say jumping off a bridge is better. A) I'd have already checked to make sure it was safe. B) I'd be willingly jumping off it.
For the cliff, falling generally indicates no will in the situation. And the majority of cliffs (if taken from a grab-bag of the world's cliffs) probably aren't safe to jump/fall from.
if it's deep enough you won't hurt yourself that bad.
I'm going to refute this for both here and the one above. If you fall for long enough, the force of hitting the water will be the same has hitting concrete.
The terminal velocity for a pencil-diving human is around 300 mph, which equates to around 44 feet per second. That gives you less than 0.15 seconds for you to push a column of water 6 ft by 2 ft (depending on how thin you are, and sort of rounding off the width of shoulders to the thin depth of the body) out of your way.
The impact alone will kill you.
.... yeah, and totally piss off all the remaining extremest muslims? We've probably already made a martyr. Why would we go throwing it in their faces?
I say it's good enough that he's dead, and that he left no grave for worshipers to worship.
Just to be original, I'll take it a different way.
It's because, in these trying times, people need heroes.
Either that, or movie companies are just showing off their cool CG, and loving the fact that they can actually do superhero movies well, for the first time.
And, yes, the money.
"Hell exists in our own mind and lives"
Although I understand the spirit of your statement, please humor me. For the sake of argument, can you provide biblical supports (to go along with the introduction to this topic)?
"I do not believe it is a physical place with Satan ruling over it."
I find it interesting that you should point out that last part, "With Satan ruling over it". I think it's almost funny how that idea has become so mainstream, yet the Bible clearly states that Satan will suffer its effects more than anyone else, if that's at all possible. In fact, the Bible implies that Hell was/will be created for Satan.
---
Mat. 20:28b "Only God ... can destroy both soul and body in hell." (NLT)
Luk 12:5b "God ... has the power to ... throw you into hell." (NLT)
Rev 19:20c "...the beast ... [was] thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur" (NLT)
Sorry that it took so long for me to respond to you. I hope you can forgive extreme tardiness.
"There are various scriptures where Jesus describes hell as a place of fire."
Yes, there are. I've looked up the other times 'geenna' occur, and, besides Jesus' 'cut off your eye' speech, Jesus says this: "Fear only God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28b, NLT) If Hell, or 'geenna' were a place of eternal fire, than God wouldn't destroy sould and body, merely place them there.
Further studying mentions that 'Geenna' originated/refers to the vally of Hinnom, where trash (and dead animals) were taken and burned. Such fires were not permament, only the results.
"the angels had yet to die their first death"
That is true, but the Second Death is the term used for us humans, who tend to die fairly easily. Although, technically, the term is 'Second Resurrection', but, once resurrected from death, the damned will die again, thus, Second Death.
-----
Also, you might bring up the term 'unquenchable fire' that crops up many times. To make a pun of the previous sentence, the term shows up in Jesus' parable of the farmer separating the wheat and the chaff.
"He is ready to separate the chaff from the wheat with his winnowing fork. Then he will clean up the threshing area, gathering the wheat into his barn but burning the chaff with never-ending fire." (Matthew 3:12, NLT)
The word used for 'burning' is Greek 'katakaio', which means 'to consume with fire'. The chaff is totally burned up, gone. However, had the fire been quenchable, one could conceivably put out the fire before the chaff was done burning. But this fire cannot be stopped--all of the chaff will be consumed.
This conveys the image that, once again, the effects are eternal. The evil will be totally consumed by the fire, but will not burn forever.
Although I find the idea of it completely appalling, and the Constitution doesn't allow it, it might be interesting.
If religion was made illegal, it would only make it grow. That's what history has taught. Oppression usually weeds out false religions (being religions set around control and not spiritual enlightenment), leaving only true religions to flourish.
But when the rich get healed from serious diseases, there's really no inherent superiority in it. They still suffer from the same sicknesses that poor people do; the rich can only cure them. But when you have an entire class of people genetically immune to those diseases, you do have inherent superiority. And nothing can stop them from lording over the little people.
It makes logical sense to choose certain genes to go into our children to make them immune to certain defects. That part is moral, yes.
But I'm guessing that this would be fairly pricey, limiting such services to certain classes of people, which means that there would eventually be two types of humans--enineered, and natural. What is to stop the 'superior' engineered people from lookind down and/or discriminating against the 'inferior' grab-bag-type people? Or the other way.
Thus, no. Unless you can find a way to make sure there is no discrimination, it's probably not a good idea.
"a god which completely knows his creation in the now will know how it unfolds into the future."
Life isn't a bunch of billiard balls on an infinite frictionless plain. Once humans (and other animals, to a lesser exent) get involved, you cannot predict things indefinitely.
I would agree that God would be able to see the nearly-infinite possible futures that exist, based on the millions of choices the billions of people on the planet make each moment, and how they'll interact with each other. But the thing about free will is that we can still surprize God. If I suddenly killed someone for no reason, I'm sure that would surprise God, as that's not who I am.
You could even say that, knowing all these futures for the world, and the people in them, He could even predict the most likely route that it will take. But that is a far step from actually seeing the future.
If God could see the future, then it eliminates any free will we have, and replaces it with a mere illusion. Once that happens, no matter what you do, God knew you were going to do it, and you cannot escape that fate. "Fate" is exactly what it becomes.
And once that happens, there's no reason that God couldn't just end it now. For if He knows who is going to be Saved and who isn't, than why wait?
"God as a super natural entity exists "outside" of time, time is his creation correct?"
I'm not sure if God created time. You'd have to ask Him. He might have created the ability for time to flow as it does, but that does not mean that He can see the future (which doesn't even exist yet), any more than an airplane manufacturer can say exactly where that airplane will fly to in its lifetime.
"So, an all loving all powerful god decided to make man, a corruptible and atrocity-committing creature that holds will above Himself, because that is the best God can muster up?"
No, God created man, a corruptible creature with free will, because God wanted men--creatures with free will. We're not the "best God can muster up", but we're what God wanted. There's a big difference.
"Could a god like yours not create a perfect universe where free will entailed the choices between only good actions?"
So you're wanting God to limit your choices? You want only half-free will? You can chose X, Y, and Z, but only if they coincide with these rules. That's not free will, but forced will.
"What permitted him to make such a broken choice, allowing innocent death and rape and murder amongst His most beloved creatures?"
All along God created humanity to be able to chose between God's way or their own way. Those are the only two options. The fact that we believe such raping and murdering to be evil indicates that God was right in saying that His law was written on our hearts long before it was written in stone.
When we decided that we knew better than God, we allowed ourselves to rape and murder. Had God taken those options away, than He would have taken away our ability to decide for ourselves. Yes, we could have the 'free will' to two 'good' options, but that's not real freedom. That's very, very limited.
Once again, God didn't want robots when he created mankind. If He did, he would have made robots, and the world would still be perfect.
"The oldest copy of anything from the OT ... date to somewhere between 200-100 BC"
But there is evidence that Israel as a nation existed back in the 1000-900 BC. A tablet from Egypt places a nation called the Israelites in Canaan during that time.
Also, for somebody to have put parts of the OT into caves in the 200s, it would be logical to assume there were a few hundred other copies floating around the cities, those probably much older.
"is there anything in the Bible that explains how people got all the way out to the Americas thousands of years prior to European exploration?"
It would be understandable that the flood would have caused such changes in the environment to allow crossings of the Bering Land Bridge. In Genesis 10:25 it says " the people of the world were divided into different language groups." Since the Native Americans had their own language groups, this would probably apply to them, too.
"Why would the world need god constantly in it to not degenerate?"
My theory is that it's just what happens. Observation has shown that random events tend to destroy rather than create, so when the Creator God left Earth via humans' wishes, the random events slowly destroy the Creation that was created, if that makes sense.
It's just what happens, just like running out of power is just what happens when a laptop isn't plugged into the wall.
"Freewill has a couple different meanings"
When God gave us free will, it was the free will to accept our natural dependence on Him, or not. We chose not. Had God stuck around despite our wishes, than it wouldn't be free will, but an illusionary choice. Such an illusionary choice is not unlike the illusionary choice the citizens of Oceania had of whether or not to love Big Brother (1984).
"Your suggesting that humans have control over god by the way."
In a way, yes. God respects our choices, so we do sort of have a power over Him. But that power isn't inherent in humans, it's God's choice to respect our choices.
"Naturally if there were a god, he would be nothing close to what Christians describe."
How do you know? What makes you say that?
"I'm quite sure there is no such thing anyway."
That has as much weight as me saying that there is a god.
"I find the one described by you as god to be tyranical and hateful."
Ah, I see now that sending your son to die for people who don't love or believe in you is tyrannical and hateful. You try having your son die instead of a mass-murderer because you love that murderer enough to see him get another chance. But, of course, if you did, you'd be tyrannical and hateful.
"Just because someone may be of middle-eastern descent, that doesn't make them a terrorist."
That is true, but how many terrorists have been middle-aged white Americans? Why should we search 80-year-old women for bombs when no terrorist have been 80-year-old women?
Why not use statistical math to make our scans more efficient?
Many of the phobias are irrational, so saying there's no need to be afraid of gays doesn't mean people aren't. There's no logical reason to be afraid of open spaces, but that's a real fear. Anthophobia is fear of flowers, and there's no good reason to be afraid of them, either.
Rationality is often thrown out the window when it comes to phobias. So, yes, I'd say homophobia is real, and that some people are afraid of gay people.
Sorry, but one more thought. Feel free to downvote this to zero to keep the scores realistic.
"No, no, no. By you, I was referring to the authors of the Bible, or perhaps Constantine..."
Also, if they were writing for sheer power, to gain themselves a position above that of their peers, it would seem they would have written something other than humility. Throughout the Bible people say "Don't look at me, look at God!" Even those that did amazing things never took credit for it, nor was any given.
Moses' actions parted the Red Sea, and yet he never claimed to have the power, nor did anybody give it to him. Ever after that feat was attributed to God and God alone. It seems that if Moses wrote that (which he probably didn't), he would have given himself a little credit.
Also, it would seem that we would know who the authors of the Bible were more often than we do. Sadly, history remembers those who used falsehoods to elevate their position more often than those who actually deserve said position. And yet, most of the authors of the Bible fade into anonymity, while God is probably the most famous person out there (if you include Allah, which even the Muslims agree is the same as the Christian (and Jewish) God).
"It seems religion is a product of an advanced mind, a human mind; in part due to the lack of it in less advanced minds."
Yes, the entire Creation is supposed to glorify God. But, as the animals don't speak English, let alone the trees and the mountains, than they're probably glorifying God by the only way they know how: Doing what God made them to do.
And this seems to be contradictory to humanity, who tend to do what they feel would be right , or what others tell them to do, or what others are doing. Which is probably why we're told to glorify God using simple things: Dancing and music.
And no, not tribal, sacrifice-peoples'-hearts-around-a-fire dancing. I'm sure God wouldn't mind a disco. :P
"Well you don't really have to go into specifics, the overall concept [of other religions] can be debated on a more general level"
Okay. In my view, it would seem that humanity tends to lean toward polytheism. After the flood, when all of humanity came from an obviously-monotheistic family, polytheism still cropped up, and fairly recently if Gilgamesh can be taken as at least semi-true. (Gilgamesh, by the way, mentions Noah and his monotheism, which I find interesting). And so it would be no wonder that cultures that spread out after the Tower of Babel would develop their own religions. I'm guessing that many would have undertones of the ancient Hebrew religion (now Jewish, Christian, and Muslim). But I cannot say without further research. Sorry.
"what if [the authors of the Bible] were lying?"
If they were lying, we'd never get to know, as it obviously wouldn't be true. It's unprovable until you can prove whether or not God exists. So now it's up to your own beliefs, as it tends to do.
"I think I should directly ask you: setting aside what Paul and the early Christians believed, do you believe in Hell?"
I believe that Hell doesn't exist, but it will for a short period of time. During Jesus' 3rd Advent (1000 years after the 2nd), and Satan rallys up all the evil people who recently underwent the 2nd ressurection to attack the Holy City, Hell will descend in the form of God's righteous fire and consume them all in one last act of justice. And that will be it. The unsaved will be dead forever. Non-existent. My resources and references would be Revelation 20.
The comment of why only the Middle East got Jesus
Again, I'm not sure. Maybe God saw that the region had the potential to affect most of the world. The Greek and Roman Empires surely ruled so much, not to mention the Muslims (who also descended from Abraham and had the message of God) ruled much of the middle-east and Africa while the Latins ruled Europe. The Romans were more likely to record things than the Indonesians and native Americans, thus preserving knowledge through time until people could go and preach the word.
As for why Jesus didn't come multiple times, I'd say it's because one sacrifice was enough for the whole of the world. He didn't die for the Chinese because there was no need. That one sacrifice allowed all to be saved. Thus Christ's final mission for His followers: "...Tell people about me everywhere—in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." --Acts 1:8
If used properly, CGI does wonders. Especially today, when you can have a purely CGI film and not even realize it (no, I can't think of any examples, but they could make re-make Shawshank Redemption using only CGI and make it like the old one).
Although I agree with the spirit in which your argument was written, I have hit the 'dispute' button.
"we can think for ourselves"
An excellent quality in all--atheists and theists alike. Thinking for yourself allows you to question what you're taught and find truth, even if it's hidden in falsehood.
"People killing each other left and right because god told them it would be a good idea."
This is half-true. Most of those times, people killed people because they wanted to, and justified it by saying it was their god(s)' will. Others, they misinterpreted God's will, and killed anyway (e.g. Hitler).
"I don't trust any words coming from a book that tells me to stone my neighbor if he dares to pick up sticks on Sunday."
"Remember to observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days a week are set apart for your daily duties and regular work, but the seventh day is a day of rest dedicated to the LORD your God."
Just a minor technicality, the seventh day is the Sabbath, not the first. Look at the Jews. They've been keeping track of this forever, so they probably have the right day.
-----
But other than those, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Free thought is an amazing thing. Sadly, so many people lack that capacity.
No matter what you might think, you cannot clump people together like that.
Yes, there are most likely unintelligent atheists, just like there are unintelligent theists. But there are also very intelligent people from both sides as well. For instance: scientists and doctors.
But I feel (arrogantly, perhaps) that if I post an argument and my opponent does not respond, it is a victory on my part.
I'd say you have a right to feel that. Good arguing!
"Can you provide a Biblical quote that clearly supports [the notion that God cannot see the future]?"
A single verse, no. But there are hints to it. For instance, if God could see the future, than He knew Eve and Adam would eat the fruit. So why even have the test? Exodus 13:17 says "God said, 'If the people are faced with a battle, they might change their mind and go back to Egypt.' " If God could see the future, why would He wait until the Israelites were complaining to rain Mana down? There are many times, especially in the OT, where God does things in response to human activity--which wouldn't be true if God could see the future.
And now for more modern examples: God would have seen Hitler's reign of terror, why not push his pregnant mother down the stairs? He would have seen the various arguments about His existance today, why not put something in the Bible--some advanced scientific truth--to prove it?
"What methodology can I use to support your understanding over any mutually-exclusive understanding provided by a different religion?"
Sadly, and embarrasingly, I'm not up to speed on other religions. Not enough to be able to answer this question. Sorry.
"this indicates that God had a specific audience to appeal to. Yet a "creator of the universe" should be trying to communicate to all audiences, right?"
Yes, He should, and did. God did it in steps, however. First the Israelites. When they failed, He tried the early Christians (which did a pretty darn good job of it for the first few hundred years). Now, there are all sorts of missionaries spreading the Good News.
"I was referring to the authors of the Bible [as possibly being power-hungry people]"
As the authors of the bible tended to be people of very humble origins, I'd say not. David was but a sheepherder when He wrote most of his stuff. Paul wasn't anybody special, and even made points to not get any power ("Some of you are saying, "I am a follower of Paul." Others are saying, "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Peter," or "I follow only Christ." Can Christ be divided into pieces? Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, for now no one can say they were baptized in my name.") As for other authors, we really don't know who they were. Maybe Daniel, and the rest of the prophets (but they were considered crazy, so probably didn't have any hopes of gaining power).
Constantine, on the other hand, probably had power on his mind, along with many of the church leaders.
"If true, that should preclude the concept of Hell, shouldn't it?"
Ah-ha. We come to another point we will probably disagree on. If Hell (as an eternal fire-pit) existed, would that destroy sin in the Universe? No, it would simply keep it in one place. And what kind of loving God (Who, although He did destroy most of humanity, it "broke his heart" to do so) would send people to suffer for eternity? The very fact that Paul didn't mention Hell at all indicates that he probably didn't believe in it, either. And as he never wrote about it, it might be safe to assume the rest of the early Christians didn't as well.
"Also, should a sinning human's convictions be taken as universal truth?"
Possibly. This is a human who spoke with Jesus face-to-face, so I'd take his word for it.
"What is it about the middle-East that means these concepts are superior to any other religion, farther away?"
I'm not sure about other religions, but the Middle East is practically in the middle of the world. What a better place to spread the story?
"If it is all true, why shouldn't an Indonesian recognize it, regardless of his experience with the Judeo-Christian concept of God?"
There isn't, which is why missionaries are able to go to those places and teach.
Honestly, I like debating with you.
It is fun. Sorry for disappearing. I probably had good reasons at the time. :P
So you indirectly support the main point of the person who posted this debate?
I was rather arguing the other way. God respects our free will, thus He cannot see the future.
So what is your point of dispute, then? That God is not, in fact, omnibenevolent?
No, that God cannot see the future.
why can't a perfect being create a perfect argument?
In a way, He did. Paul says that even those who've never heard of God can believe by looking at Creation. Maybe not that it's now flawed, but the complexities. How a single cell is more complex--and infinitely more automatic--than a modern city. In how many things must happen for a muscle to twitch a fraction of an inch, and how quickly it has to happen.
are you sure about there were no wars?
Sorry, I should specify. There was pax romana. No wars in Rome, and Israel was in the Roman Empire.
My points are totally irrelevant IF you are a local religious leader trying to gain power.
No, I'm not a leader trying to gain power. Sadly, however, you've hit the nail on the head. I am quite sad that Christianity has become a religion. Most organized religions are about gaining power, which often deters people from listening to the small nuggets of truth that may or may not reside deep inside.
As for a universal truth, how about this: "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." --Paul, Rom 8:38.
You can take that or leave it, but I quite like that verse.
Supposition should logically preclude omniscience.
Yes, but although the religious leaders were about power, the people still believed in God , which is why Jesus was able to gain listeners. If he had gone to, say, Indonesia where they hadn't even heard of God, He probably wouldn't have gotten very far. Nor would it have been likely to be recorded, like it was in Rome.
