Agreed. Most people today don't realize or take the time to learn that the wine mentioned in the Bible (or even ancient texts that use the same Greek word) do not refer to wine as we know it today. Rather, it was more like grape juice.

Well, taken enough of it, it would still get you drunk.

I gotta agree with CPK here.

Christians still masturbate, drink, do drugs, murder people, and have homosexual intercourse - all things they preach against. Some of the most "godly" men and women I know are actually atheistic. Noah did get incredibly drunk and blacked out naked in his tent, with his two sons covering him - and he certainly went to heaven. Sampson killed hundreds and hundreds of Phillistines with his bare hands, and he certainly went to heaven. Not sure if Onan made it, but you get the idea.

I'm an Atenist and I believe that people are all arranged on the same scale, weighing their soul against a feather, in that their faith doesn't matter. As long as they adhere to a personal code of principles, practice atonement for their transgressions against others, honor the sanctity of their family, and use your gifts to bring joy rather than suffering, this godly individual can enter the plains of Osiris.



This post was edited by general_patton on Jul 9 2010 04:30am

Do you have any idea wtf you're talking about?

1 - how can someone by "godly" yet be atheistic? that's completely contradictory
2 - Noah "became drunk" not "incredibly drunk" and yes he did "lay uncovered" in his tent, but not "black out" in his tent - have you never just fell asleep after being drunk or have you "blacked out" every single time? Also, where did you get that his two sons were covering him?? His two sons COVERED him with a garment, all the while adverting their eyes so that "they would not see his father's nakedness"

Futhermore, as Paul T. pointed out to me, this could "easily be interpreted as a warning against getting drunk, because it could make one violate some of God's commandments" as demonstrated when Noah was naked in front of his family.



3 - Samson was a man born out of God's wish, a man God used to deliver Israel out of the hands of the Philistines. He didn't just kill people for the sake of killing people like a cold-blooded murderer.







If each person's code is different, then who's to say who's right? If I thought that torturing you and then killing you via asphyxiation was legit, then who's to say I'm wrong? Even if someone told me I'm wrong, I'm only abiding by my "personal code of principles" and therefore how can I be wrong? Your argument is considerably flawed.

Tl:dr version - your arguments are flawed and your "facts" are not, in fact, facts.

~Rich



Ah, that's my mistake then - I misread that. Edited out some of my previous statements.

Thanks Paul.

This post was edited by hi_mynameis on Jul 9 2010 07:19am

Thanks for taking the time to post that (with regards to Noah, Samson, etc), was going to a little later today. One note though, he said Atenist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atenism

Another thing I might have added was that it doesn't say Noah intentionally got drunk. In fact, this was after the flood, and some suggest that there were vast environmental changes that occurred as a result, causing fermentation in his wine, which caused him to accidentally become drunk. Additionally, one could view this as a warning against drinking, as it might make you do something against one of God's commandments (such as OT law of the nakedness to family, as was this particular case).

No, it's not contradictory in the slightest. "Godly" is an adjective used to describe people who are good people, with a solid moral foundation. When he says that many atheists he knows are the most "godly" people he knows, he means they're good and moral people. In other words, they do much of what God would want them to do, even if they don't worship him.

Yes, it is contradictory. Making up your own definition of the word does not make it so. It's also quite ironic that an atheist (one that does not believe in God) would use a word about God to describe themselves (though I'd bet a vast majority never would.) The original poster claims to not be atheist, but is describing atheist people himself (in a quite contradictory manner).

Main Entry: god·ly
Pronunciation: \-lē\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): god·li·er; god·li·est
Date: 14th century
1 : divine
2 : pious, devout
— god·li·ness noun
— godly adverb, archaic

The bolded is the actual definition from webster's dictionary.

Again, his (general_patton) entire argument is based around the fallacy that man decides what is good or bad. This can easily be dis-proven with even the most rudimentary study of societies throughout history, and their attempts at self defined moral compasses. As has been said before, it's not by your standards that you are judged, it's by God's.

Merriam-Webster Online dictionary:
Main Entry: god·ly
Pronunciation: \-lē\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): god·li·er; god·li·est
Date: 14th century
1 : divine
2 : pious, devout
— god·li·ness noun
— godly adverb, archaic

If you Google the word "Godly", the top 4 results will tell you in one way or another:

Free Online Dictonary
god·ly (gdl)
adj. god·li·er, god·li·est
1. Having great reverence for God; pious.
2. Divine.

So no, "Godly" is not just "an adjective used to describe people who are good people, with a solid moral foundation". It is referring to people who fear God and who worship God.

Also, just because someone "does good" does not make him Godly. In accordance with your argument, anyone who does good things can/should be considered "Godly" - that's absurd.

/e ha, one step ahead of me Paul

This post was edited by hi_mynameis on Jul 9 2010 10:54am

The dictionary is known to be infamously vague or incorrect with certain specific theological terms. It, for example, defines atheism incorrectly. The definition of "godly" I'm referring to is #4 here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/godly or "gloriously good". I recognize the wiktionary isn't a definitive source on what the meanings of words are either, but then again no dictionary is. The fact remains, however, that "godly" has been used by many people to describe people who are simply "gloriously good", whether you like it or not.

And it's completely improper to use the word "fallacy" when referring to the claim that "man decides what is good or bad", because even if you adhere to some objective ethics determined by God, it's an axiom you disagree with, not the reasoning itself. In other words, you don't even agree upon a set of premises, so even if your conclusion is different, you can't ascribe this difference to reasoning or any "fallacy".

And I fail to see how man deciding what's good has been "dis-proven". If anything, I would say it helps lend credence to the idea that there is no such thing as objective ethics, and that subjective ethics are the only kind of ethics which exist in this world.

1. Of or pertaining to a god
her godly powers = her superhuman powers
2. Devoted to a god.
3. Devoted to the single deity of one of the monotheist religions of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
4. Gloriously good.

1 - the fact you think that a Wiki is more reliable than a Dictionary is laughable - you yourself claimed that dictionaries are "infamously vaugue" but at least they adhere to some standard; on the other hand, i could go into that wiki right now and alter everything

2 - you chose to take the 4th meaning of a word instead of the first 3 as the overall meaning of a word? Seriously?

3-


This is just untrue. Please provide some evidence of this if you're going to continue to claim this.

This post was edited by hi_mynameis on Jul 9 2010 11:10am