I don't even remember what this was all about but I do know someone needs to take away Trump's Twitter.

Its not a very clear question, but in general 1) no I dont think it results in a better behaved child ( although I suppose that depends on the exact definition of better behaved) and 2) Im not sure that better behaved is the thing to aim for ( although again, that depends on the exact definition)

I think believing it wasn't trivially easy is rational, since He faced the same temptations we do. He also suffered an extremely painful death (along with a multitude of rejections) within our human context. I think it's without a doubt worthy of praise.

I'm sorry you think that way, I encourage you to learn more about Jesus and the Bible, maybe you'll come to a different opinion someday.

I'm responding to this about a month after you posted this, and it seems you're already having a discussion about it, but I just have to say that I disagree. I think punishing a child in a way that is loving can help that child develop into a moral person.

This post was made awhile ago, but I would like to retract my recommendation for Doug Batchelor as a pastor. He teaches that Michael the archangel is Jesus, which is not biblical. Here's a good question and answer on gotquestions.org that explains why that isn't biblical.

If I remember correctly, that's also the Jehovas' Witnesses stance.

Which puts the gotquestions.org article and the links at the bottom in an interesting light, since it seems mostly to be about JW-bashing. Now I have no issue with JW receiving criticism, since I think it is a dangerous movement for individual members. But from my view it is hard to distinguish them as any more dangerous than more typical conservative evangelicals.

It is, however, intriguing to see two groups of literalists so completely at odds vs each-other. It does put the whole idea of fundamentalism in a rather poor light.

Quite the contrary, it would be intriguing if everyone agreed on what the meaning of an ancient book filled with absurdities was.

I don't know why you think this is contrary, as it directly implies that literalism is fundamentally (pun very much intended) an extremely bad idea.

It's not intriguing at all. Not one bit.

Well, you commented.

Well you got me there....?

The world would pretty much have to be a near-utopia for "typical conservative evangelicals" to be classified as "dangerous." Secularism is typically far more "dangerous" than evangelicalism
.
For example, much is made of the carnage of the Spanish Inquisition over about a 300-year period (as well there should be). However, to put that in perspective, Stalin killed more people in an average month during his reign than the Spanish Inquisition killed in 300 years total.

Then again, if Carl Sagan is correct, and we're just basically "stardust", then death, destruction, mayhem, torture and the like are just examples of nature doing its mindless thing, so "eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we all shall die."

Secularism was a very important political philosophy to reduce religious strife in Europe, but it is in no way a guarantee for peaceful society. It does not in itself guarantee human rights or freedom. Only a society with trusted institutions and a cultural respect for liberty of your fellow citizens can do that, and even then never completely.

But danger is a relative term. Conservative fundamentalism has proven itself to pose a danger to educational systems, to rational evidence-based decision-making in politics, to the liberties of many individuals and it increases friction between ethnicities and cultures.

And if Carl Sagan is correct then we're living proof that the universe cares about us.

I think you're the first person I've ever encountered who thinks that stardust can or should be cared about by anything or anyone.

I hope you're right, because I've longed for years to develop compassion for dirt. (Okay, I'm out of line with that throw-away sarcasm bit )

In all seriousness, if people are just the end result of billions and billions of years of matter shifting hither and yon, how do you conclude that the universe cares about us? Do you believe that the universe is a conscious entity (which it would have to be to "care about us.?")

Looking forward to your response.

Peace.

If we are stardust then the universe cares about us because we are a part of the universe. Our thoughts and emotions are just as much the universe as Jupiter circling the sun.

That isn't even a head-spinner, in this context. If we're stardust, then when we contemplate the universe, the universe contemplates itself.

I don't see it as some profound revelation, but it is quite a beautiful thought.

I'm not sure if you're interested in reading the question and answer on that page, but if you are, having read them, do you think what's written makes a good argument for why Michael the archangel cannot be Jesus?

Hehe, sure, it's a fluffy, but it's a logical consequence of certain beliefs.

I don't have a problem with it, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that they are the same. I don't think this particular rebuttal is very well worded however.

Then again, that Lucifer is Satan is, a common Christian doctrine that gotquestions.org also supports, is argued on similar grounds to the "Jesus is Michael" view. Ie. they take the similarities and run with it.

Consider that Christianity doesn't even agree on the divinity of Jesus and even the majority that do varies wildly on the nature of that divinity, and I think it's safe to say that you can argue such a broad array of possible theologies that it is daunting to even try to make sense of it as a non-believer.

"Caring" requires consciousness. Do you believe that the universe is a conscious entity?

If so, please explain and show your work. Thanks.

Have a blessed day!

I don't know what the universe is, I simply believe it is. I believe I'm part of it. What I and others think is part of the universe.

That's all that is needed. You are misunderstanding the point made. There is no "universal Gaia theory" here.

Well, this wouldn't be the first time I misunderstood someone's point. Nor, I fear, the last.

Well, it's airy and fluffy stuff. More suited for a late discussion over beers than some big discussion on the nature of morals and being.

But basically if the universe is everything, then a thought is part of the universe. So if you care, you have evidence the universe cares.

Doesn't mean a meteor won't kill you, but hey... so can a bad idea.

Would this be a bad time to mention that I voted for Donald Trump?

Not really, he's the type of politician we've been developing towards steadily and the type I suspect will dominate modern politics for a long time to come.

That's a scary thought!