Philosoraptor

It’s called civil disobedience. A powerful force when done right.

Like Martin Luther King Jr.

Exactly. Had he and his supporters had resorted to violence the movement would have failed. The willingness to take the beatings and worse without retreating is what civil disobedience so powerful.

The other successful civil disobedience movement was Gandhi. Again using peaceful tactics instead of violence led to public opinion forcing England to give up its rule.

Now look at Palestine. They have been using violence for generations against Israel for its occupation and what has it gotten them? More violence. Israeli hardliners are able claim self defense because of it.

So when faced with disobeying a law on moral grounds, the lesson is to stand your ground, but not strike out. Takes an incredibly brave person to face down those that would raise arms against them peacefully. And Any coward can pull a trigger.

In Dutch we say "Nood breekt wet" which literally translates to "Emergency breaks law", and I guess I don't need to explain what we mean by that. Sometimes upholding the law can cause much more trouble than violating it. And the law is meant to prevent trouble. No law is however 100% waterproof when it comes to preventing trouble.

I mean, say I see a little girl getting raped and beat the crap out of that rapist, I am technically violating the law, as violence is technically always forbidden. However, were my actions in such a case still wrong? I think most people would actually deem me a hero. Now tell me, would I be a hero then, or a violent brute?

If you don't have a driving license, but you have a medical emergency and all you can do is drive a car to bring the patient to the hospital, and you know if you don't they'll die, you are still breaking the law. But is your action then still unacceptable?

Everyone, even high judges, know that the law is not the answer to everything. And the truth is that a lot of people were not condemned for violating the law even when found guilty, because the judge thought the reasons why they did so were just. A good judge DOES take the reasons for violating the law into account for extreme situations such as those. The law is merely set up to cover the most common situations, but no law can cover any situation.

If there is something that the law represents that is bad, or if you are for a greater good, then absolutely. Like in the Bible, when Nebechunezzer passes the law for everyone to bow down to a statue of him, it ended up being good that the three Hebrew boys resisted.

that's about what I would say

Because it would be wrong. God says to have no other gods before Him, so that would be going against the core of their belief. It served them well because God saved them for it.

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Matthew 10:28
God says it would be wrong, and thus those who follow Him say it's wrong. I don't blame you if the idea seems foreign to you.
A lot of people HAVE died because of their faith in God, and they are blessed in Heaven because of it.

Yeah, because God is good and perfect. And really we all know what is right and wrong because we have the Holy Spirit leading and guiding us, and that is what we g And the Bible itself is proof of heaven, it is incredibly accurate. Also, we are living proof of heaven. There is no way that the complex organisms that we are are just a chance of nature. But not only this, the evidence of spiritual war is everywhere, in new spiritualists, channelists, and soothsayers. They all are serving a spiritual master whether they know and believe it or not, and it is the wrong side of the war. The angels are fighting in this war and God is fighting for us because we can't on our own. There are also some people who have died and gone to heaven but God gave them a second chance; a new lease on life. That's physical proof.

Very true, good job explaining THAT so perfectly

Thx:)

Some of those are taken wildly out of context, for example "killing gays" is not what the Bible says. It is talking about people who have sexual relations with others of the same gender, and that does not always apply to all people who would consider themselves gay. And in any case, "the wages of sin are death", and I'm glad Jesus paid that price for me.

We all have a sinful nature, and that conflicts with what we were originally created as.

The Bible talks about Heaven yes, and everything else historical it talks about can be historically confirmed, thus, it is only logical to believe in Heaven too.

If we have an intelligent designer, where do they exist? As for if we are products of natural processes, well, would you consider it possible for a functioning watch to create itself in the middle of the woods, even given billions of years? We are far more complex than a watch, I daresay it IS impossible that we formed randomly.

Spiritualists, channelists, and soothsayers are not referring to people with just different beliefs. There are people out there who use supernatural power that can't be explained and that's what this is referring to. The best explanation for this is angels (or demons, depending on the case). That's my evidence for angels. As for spiritual warfare, that refers to the battles between said angels and demons.

Perhaps their stories seem to contradict because they're seeing different parts of the same picture.

Where does it say in the Bible that killing gays is acceptable? Where does it say any of that is acceptable, really? Those things may have been part of the law that no longer applies because of Jesus' sacrifice for us. And is your conscience the Holy Spirit? It isn't divine or holy it is just as flawed as everyone else's. That is why when making a decision concerning right or wrong I pray that God will silence every voice that is not of Him and He is faithful to do so. It may be circular reasoning, but when the Bible is the absolute truth why should it not be acceptable? Yes, it is the argument for an intelligent designer, but it has everything to do with whether or not heaven exists. The intelligent designer, God, if we did a sin a long time ago ultimately separating us from Him, He would need a place to dwell. It's logical. I am saying that because it makes sense because there is more proof that the Bible is true then the big bang theory. Yes, some of the theory of evolution is true, but the other half is just a theory, not fact. And I do not say that just people who believe in different things than I is my proof. I meant people who claim to have a spiritual connection that is not of God. It is dark and it is evil. My evidence for angels is rooted in the Bible, but there are many accounts of people who have seen angels. Yes, in some cases it might have been just a far fetched story, but some children are parry to this. Children who are innocent and have not yet learned that lying is a viable option. And discerning which is right or wrong, test it against scripture. Does it match up with what is in the Bible? If not, then it's wrong, yes then it's right. If I haven't answered anything, please let me know

Yes, but those things are laws in the Old Testament, laws that no longer apply because Jesus became the law when He died so that we don't have to follow them. ANd some of those verses are taken out of context~ you do realize that "servant" is not the same thing as a "slave", right? And it was what was acceptable at the time, God gives this kind of stuff to people a lot in the Bible things because they ask- a king, a judge, food, and servants. But it's not because that was in His plan, it's because it was something that the Israelites wanted based off of the world around them. Yes, God knows things from God are good, but these laws had to be put in place because of the sin that entered the world. We couldn't follow the law on our own. But these laws were in place because of how far people had strayed away from God. Yes, there were horrible things, but we know that we do not have to follow these laws anymore. And I can't even explain how I feel~ it's like I am at once with peace one way or another. Sometimes I continue to be conflicted, but those times are when He answers me in a different way, like sending someone who gives me the answer I need. He usually reaffirms it with whatever I'm reading and church sermons and stuff. But here's the thing. The Quran is mostly true because it is out of the Old Testament. I'm not defending my use of circular reasoning, but when a book like the Bible has been around for a very long time, and it has been copied by scribes flawlessly(they destroyed and transcription that even had one letter wrong) and there is countless articles of historic proof, and I have seen the work of God in my life, I'm sorry if it is circular reasoning, but the Bible is my proof of the things within it. No, that is not ultimately proof that heaven exists. And can you name some of these contradictions? I am willing to bet that they are taken out of context. And what in the Bible has "been proven to be false"?

Yes, evolution is fact and theory, I thought I addressed that. Yes, I know the definition of a theory. A theory is supposed, it is not a solid fact yet. It is used in an attempt to explain things. Spiritual is anything that deals with things that are not of the things that we see day to day. Spiritual is a tie to something not of this world, bigger then ourselves if you will. It is the fight between angels and demons, in reality, but it is other things, or not even real, to others. Children do not know what lying is unless it is introduced to them. Yes, kids get things wrong, we all do. Yes, they could be mistaken. But there is a reason that Christians are called to have a childlike faith, it's because children will believe anything because they have not yet learned that lying is an option. They don't question, as far fetched as things may seem. No, you have no way to confirm them seeing angels. But for me, there are times in the Bible where angels are evident, so for me, I believe they did. The Bible was written very early on in time, but prior to it being written prophets and God himself would talk to people. And most people have a moral compass anyways directing them to what is right and wrong. And can you give me some examples of time the Bible says something yet all the overwhelming evidence says it is wrong?

Thx for explaining it so perfectly.

Well I assume the genocide your referring to is when Israel wiped out the nations in Canaan. Yeah that was because those people sacrificed their firstborn children to Molech by burning them up. In short, it was because of their sins. I don't condone slavery, and the kind it allowed was slightly different. The person in question had the choice to sell themselves to a master and every set 50 all slaves would be released. Galatians 5:1 says "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." so that totally abolished it at that point. By honor killings I assume your referring to the stoning of a rebellious child. Again, that's because of their sin, but you just couldn't decide to kill them yourself, you had to take them to the town elders so you wouldn't just get away with killing your son or daughter yourself.

I didn't say it was a 100% proof, I said it would be logical to believe in it based off of all the other historically true things in the Bible.

No, watches can't reproduce, but humans can. Doesn't that just make us even more complex? There has never been an observed spontaneous and random creation of life, therefore it is unscientific to assume that we could have randomly sprung into being and evolved. The scientific method requires that something must be observable and be able to be replicated. Spontaneous life cannot be supported by either and thus is unable to be accepted as scientific fact. It has not been proved to be possible as it has neither been replicated nor observed, therefore, it is impossible. It completely defies logic.

It's supernatural, meaning there is no scientific explanation, which, if you were wondering, means that it can't be explained. Supernatural isn't an explanation, it's definition is "of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal." Catch where it says unexplainable?

How else would you explain it?

"So that makes genocide okay? That makes killing women, children and babies okay?"
'The wages of sin is death'. I wouldn't expect you to understand (I don't mean that in a derogative or aggressive way) because we have different worldviews. In any case, that no longer necessarily applies since Christ paid that price for us.

"No it didn't. I've never heard a single bible teacher say that that verse means slavery was totally abolished. And besides, Ephesians 6:5 tells slaves to obey their masters, which means they were still slaves."
Ok granted, it didn't abolish it because evidently slavery continued to exist after that, that was poor word choice on my part. What it did was condemn it as wrong. One person should not own another.

"I'm referring to Deut 22:13-21, which says that if a girl isn't a virgin on her wedding night, she should be stoned to death because she dishonored her father's house. And even if I was referring to the rebellious child rule, that's messed up as well. We don't kill children because they're rebellious or disobedient."
First off, as I said above, 'the wages of sin is death'. In addition, rebellious child isn't referring to some kid that didn't follow his bed-time, it's referring to one who everyone would know as rebellious as a result of his acts and you can see this because the elders and the people of the town are the ones to stone him, so unless his sin were evident, he wouldn't be stoned.

"It wouldn't. The Bible contains many historical errors, anyway."
Historical errors such as?

"More complex than a watch? Yes. So what?"
'So what?' what kind of an argument is that? Don't insult your own intelligence.

"You keep saying "random". Natural processes aren't all random. Also, there has never been an observed supernatural creation of life, either. And we know natural processes happen. We don't know that supernatural processes happen. You misunderstand how scientists believe life may have arisen."
Yes, there has never been a humanly observed instance of supernatural creation of life, neither has there been an observation of life coming from non-life. What part exactly don't I understand?

"God isn't"
He Himself is not observable, so it does take a certain amount of faith. All things considered though, it's far more logical to believe in a God that created us than that we formed on the backs of crystals or whatever the latest theory is.

"Scientific evidence suggests that life arose from nonlife. How exactly it happened, scientists don't know yet. But things have been observed which support that idea."
And what exactly is that evidence?

"Something isn't impossible just because it hasn't been proven to be possible."
Something isn't possible just because it hasn't been proven to be impossible.

"Something defying logic doesn't mean it's false. In the past, people would have said a large metal machine flying through the air defied logic and science. Yet we know airplanes fly, and we know how they fly."
Birds fly, so another object being able to fly is not outside the realm of logic. Yes we reproduce, and yes we have discovered cloning processes, but in those instances there is pre-existing life or a creator, and even in the case of cloning, there must be a pre-existing organism to copy.

"Just because something doesn't have a scientific explanation doesn't mean it's supernatural."
Mmmm, actually that's exactly what supernatural means.

"How else would I explain angels? I don't believe they exist."
Ah, so there is no other explanation then.

Yes, because the creation WAS good before the events in the garden. Sin is the reason the law was put in place, it is the reason bad things happen, and it is the reason, ultimately, that there are unbelievers today. And if I had lived back then, I probably would disagree with what God was saying. But since I live now, where the Bible shows the full picture, I see why He did it, to bring about a greater good and save more people. Yes, it may be the same thing, but they release the slaves after seven years. It is still horrible, I'm not trying to make excuses for it, but it's where society was at. As for child sacrifices, while they were acceptable only to a certain extent. They were also used for religious purposes, and that goes against the original law that God had given the Israelites, to have no other gods but Him. To me, living in the 21st century, yes, they are horrible. I know that it was for a purpose to keep the Israelites set apart and on the right path, but it seems really harsh for today's world because it wasn't meant for today's world. It was for back then. Yes, I understand that, but the scribes had more to lose by copying it then they did not. And there is evidence outside of the Bible, I just don't need it. You might, and I'd recommend the Case for Christ which shows a high amount of corroborative evidence supporting the Bible. A few big ones would be Josephus' accounts of Jesus, geographical locations, and several archeological findings such as people mentioned in the bible's tombs and such. There is more, but I am no theologian and I could not give you a complete list. Saul enlisted the person to kill him, is that not killing himself? And the area the Amalekites invaded was near Philistine, so the people who wrote those separate books might have called the soldier whom Saul had kill himself both of those things. Yes, there were separate accounts, but they were from different people who had different sources.

How has the story of Noah's flood bee proven false? If anything, it has been supported by many archeological discoverings of dinosaurs and such. Yes, I understand that a theory is well supported by evidence, but that does not mean it is completely true. As for scientific evidence, I have not much of a video, but I found this article http://ebenalexander.com/is-there-proof-of-a-spiritual-universe/
You can believe that that is not true, but I do. And yes, on the surface, being gullible can seem like a bad thing. But it is what keeps faith so pure, and why it is harder to believe. It's not an easy thing, because of the spiritual battle and sinful nature. And I know it is true because I know the Bible is true. It's just really simple to me. The Bible is very straightforward.
The story of how the world was created personally makes more sense than the Big Band theory or the majority of the Theory of Evolution. The story of Noah's ark has more evidence and shows more of a possibility of being correct than most of the theories concerning the dinosaurs. And yes, the overwhelming evidence says that most of those miracles are wrong, but that is because they are miracles. They aren't normal things that just happen. But miracles still happen today, and I can't give you any big things off of the top of my head, but I could give you a few personal things if you really want me too.

Listen, I've shared what I believe and answered your questions the best I can, and you've said what you believe. I don't believe we are going to change each other's minds, so let's just stop. I do suggest reading The Case for Christ, it could better answer your questions than I ever could

I am willing to consider it, I have considered it before in my life but I just don't believe that the Bible and it's contents are false, sorry. Sorry you find them unconvincing.

Alright

Taxation without representation

Not to be that guy but the American District of Columbia has no representation and yet they pay taxes and don't protest. (I don't live there, I visited in 5th grade)

it's a storm abrewin'!

yes

Yes, if stopping a larger-scale law-breaking

Yes.

Yes, of course. It's one way to get a law repealed. It's not the "right" way to go about it, but sometimes it truly is the only way. I see civil disobedience listed below as one way to go about changing policy/law by breaking a law, but there are many ways to do it. The more desperate people are to change policy, the more likely they are to commit serious crimes.

but sometimes what the law says is the "right" way can be the wrong way religiously or morally

Yes, I'm aware...that is what can make it "acceptable" to break the law. That was kinda my whole argument.

oohh