Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity

Absolutely.At no point! He will always continue to be supernatural.I myself will no longer be "natural" when I'm in Heaven. Therefore, I need make no distinction between the natural and supernatural, in Heaven. On earth? Sure. In Heaven? No need. No, it would not be a "wonder" and a "sign." As a science person, I would think that there's some mechanism, that needs to be studied, that is making that happen. Something would be very natural to me if it happened everyday. The point is, Dr A, what does not happen everyday we simply recognize as "supernatural." Laws exist for the sake of maintaining order and consistency, don't they? so when someone suspends a law and does something miraculous, He's wanting to get attention. That's how I look at it. If something, however outrageous, is happening everyday, people are bound to be like "heh, yeah, I've seen that before dude"--- and that by no means is "supernatural." You are right. But if you compare Jesus' three years of performing miracles, which people no doubt witnessed, to the thousands (millions, depending on how you look at it ) of years before and after His non-physical existence, THAT'S an awful short time of supernatural work!!! People HAVE to conclude that that is supernatural work.How can miracles be "observable, measurable, quantifiable etc"? I can observe blood circulation, or peristalsis, or sinus rhythm...but can I observe the miraculous healing of a leprous hand on such a regular basis as said mechanisms? I can measure blood pressure, or light intensity, or distance traveled, but can I measure anything about a miracle? Can I titrate, plumb, fathom, pace, meter or weigh anything about a miracle? Let me hear your understanding of "supernatural" Elaborate, please.

Yes, that would be the big question. And as I understand dwise1's (and your) argument, he's saying --Atheist morality targets inter-personal and societal well being-- and --Theists morality targets deity-appeasement--sometimes at the cost of societal harmony.Did I get it? {I did some formatting for my clarity's sake, hope that's fine...}Got it. That's much clearer, thanks Apothecus. I think we're on the same page now. *deep breath* Let's see...My intent is not to "refute" your points one by one. We'll talk atheist to theist here, in order to find some common starting point for further debate. You've put forth your understand of some things in theism--as a atheist, and now let me put forth my understanding of the same things--as a theist. And we'll see where this takes us... Well, here's how I look at it, Apothecus.There's a term called Sanctity which we often use in religion. Often it's adjective form is used as a qualifier; such as, the ark of the covenant is sanctified..or holy, or sacred....also, he Tabernacle... and the Holy of Holies...is sanctified. In the same way, God's laws are sacred, holy in that, 1) they are set part for a divine purpose, and 2) going against them is sin and 3) Sin is worthy of divine wrath. In this sense, yes, I--as a Christian--am following the Ten commandments (or try to) with such religious fervor because God's law is holy and a breach of it means punishment. There's two aspects in my following a moral standard: 1) Why do I follow it? and 2) Why should I follow it with fervor and fear? I just answered question 2). The reason I am so particular about following Biblical moral code with the intensity that I show (or try to show), is ultimately because it is God's commandment.Now question 1). Why do I follow a commandment? The answer Apothecus, is the same reason you gave me for why atheists follow their moral code: Brotherhood and harmony.So, when God says "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", He's:1. Setting a moral standard
2. Setting a moral standard, whose breach is a breach against Himself!, and not the moral itself! (Makes sense? I hope!)Do you see what 2. does? It makes the moral more weighty, and more serious! In this sense, am I being moral because I fear God? Yes, absolutely. I want to take said moral as seriously as He does. And I know that He takes a moral seriously when He says "I am the LORD...thou shalt [whatever]" As for the purpose of the moral itself, i.e the intent of..say, "love you neighbour" is ONE AND THE SAME, for both atheists and theists. Its just that we both have different accountability. I account myself and my moral standard to God. That's wonderful! Absolutely.If that statistic/study is a direct proof of causation, then that's really, really, really, really, commendable...and it attracts credence to the moral standards of atheists. If, on the other hand, it is a correlation...then? Show me some factors involved in the study that make the prisoners religious standing "the control" of the experiment, if you will...Oh and btw, I never will say that atheists have no reason to be moral. Societal brotherhood is a perfectly viable reason to be moral. Its just that, Apothecus, the demands of societal brotherhood are going to keep changing with the mood/attitude/fancy of the day. That, as a theist, I view as a problem. What might me considered "good/moral" today, might be considered "bad/immoral" tomorrow. The morals keep changing with the mood. ... Well, I'll take that as a "half in jest-half in seriousness" type comment. No comment form my side, Doc. It depends on how you look at it...with atheist lenses or theist lenses.Anyway, moving on[]*clears throat* So it may appear. We'll have to wait and see what a atheist-dominated world looks like...not just one statistic, you know? Christianity says "God forgives all your sins, no matter what they are" and here comes a random Christian named Dr. Sing and adds "umm, yeah, so long as they unintentional, please"....right?There is no sin that a Christian commits that makes him/her worthy of losing their salvation. {IF there were--then that's a direct pointer to God's incapacity to save--since salvation is by faith, not by works} However, every single intentional sin that is committed, is worthy of earthly punishment (=unforgivable/God can't just say "Ok, I'm not going to give you any punishment for that); not eternal damnation, if you're a believer. Now, unintentional sins--whether you're a believer or not, I believe--God lets them go. No punishment for them. I don't think you're differentiating between a believer's eternal standing and earthly life. I am.As a Christian, 1. every single intentional sin I commit is going to punished here on earth. 2. There is no sin that will count against me that will change my eternal standing. So, if were talking to one of my "incarcerated (believer) brethren", I will tell him that God will forgive his rape. (=not alter his eternal standing BECAUSE of said sin), but at the same time, God will give you some sort of earthly punishment (such as death of a loved one, or car accident, or cancer --or all etc) to teach you a lesson by punishing you here on earth. Edited by Dr. Sing, : clarifying moreEdited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Slavery was neither forced nor advocated, it was only tolerated and allowed.

This fallacy is called, "the babbling from inaccurate knowledge" fallacy, courtesy Dr. Sing.Seriously, Huntard. I thought you were a rational guy.Unless you understand (or even attempt to) the big picture of how things work in the Bible, you are doomed to misinterpret it in abysmally wrong ways....like what you were just doing. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

By your logic then, Adam is also...a clone of God. So we have God I and God II?

I'm going to be as succinct as possible on this one because it is not possible to resolve the Bible's stance on slavery on a internet discussion with limited time.The Bible doesn't ever advocate slavery.The Bible does not demand slavery.The Bible gives rules and regulations about treating slaves.I said to Huntard to look at the big picture because, in light of the fall, the earth is currently being dominated by Satan. Satan is called the prince of this world. And this means he is playing with it left and right. Like a lot of other unfortunate happenings, slavery is also a result of the fall, compounded by satan's power to sway man's mind whichever direction he pleases. God gives guidelines for slave treatment in order to regulate and organize whats going on....I've wondered why He didn't just overpower satan and completely eradicate it from this world altogether (He could do this if He wanted)....and I battled with this question for years...and found a speculative answer from studying the big picture. In Rom 6, Paul uses slavery as a metaphor. We are either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness. Unless there was slavery in the Bible like there really was in the world, we most probably would not understand the concept of being born again. Being born again is likened to being a slave to Christ. And someone who does not understand slavery is probably not going to understand being born again as well. The Bible is being honest by including slavery in its pages (not advocating it, just including it) because slavery has been present in human history. You can tell that the Bible is a real book, and not fairy tale because of things like this.All this said, I do not advocate slavery. The slavery that exists among humans is cruel and harmful. And I'm not for it at all. But as a believer, when Paul says I gotta be a slave to Christ.,..I understand what he means and I totally agree with him. God is never going to ill-treat anybody...unlike men, which makes human-human slavery a disgusting thing. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.