"He confronted it, he corrected it. ..." Uh....no he didn't . He didn't lapse...it was never corrected. Glee was aware of the problem...did they ever ask him to leave the show and check in somewhere and get help? Or did they keep the same production schedule...gotta make the money money money?

I'm not saying the media isn't emphasizing the positive and downplaying the negative, but I think it's inaccurate to say that there's no mention about his longtime struggle with drugs. Why overgeneralize that it's all about his pretty face with no acknowledgment of his drug problem when that's simply not the case?

Here's an example from Access Hollywood, since you called them out.
http://www.accesshollywood.com/cory-monteith-a-look-back-at-late-actors-past-drug-abuse-and-rehab-stints_article_81871

So Access Hollywood, a TV show, wrote a web article. Did they actually air a segment about his past problems? No, because the teen fans don't want to know about that and they aren't exactly a "hard hitting" news agency (as if anyone is any more).

Yeah, actually he did. His family staged an intervention. He quit using, moved to a quieter town (away from the party scene) and got a job as a roofer. He was sober. Then he got back into it.

And yes, the show staged an intervention and held up production.
http://www.accesshollywood.com/ryan-murphy-talks-cory-monteith-intervention-moving-forward-with-lea-michele-and-grief-counselors-on-glee-set_article_82092

Why do you blather on with accusations that have no factual basis? It's much simpler to just take a position and express indignation, isn't it?

Again, I'm not saying Access Hollywood or any other media outlet is handling it perfectly. It's just bugging the fuck out of me this morning that you're ranting about something based on fiction.

I've never seen Glee so I had no idea who he was till I saw the story. But, like the Hanged Man, I can't see how you think they're ignoring his drug problem. I'm just saying that they're glossing over the icky aspects of being a junkie because he was a good looking guy and that's what counts in celebrity culture. I mean, look how Chris Brown is back after what he did to Rihanna or how Sean Penn beat up Madonna but no one acknowledges it or how Kurt Cobain has been turned into a martyr.

And at any rate, I don't think anyone will be more likely to do hard drugs because of how the media covered a C-lister's death. This will be forgotten just like every story like this is eventually forgotten by everyone but the people who actually knew the person.

I'm still amazed that Madonna didn't plant a stilleto in Penn's ass. She is not one to trifle with.

It's God's to judge, not yours. Not that I believe this. But it's the meaning of the verse.

To correct, to aid, is not to judge.

And by the way, yes, for the first 18 years of my life I was a committed Christian. I was when I joined this site in fact.

No, Thucy, you don't understand the verse at all. Please don't insert your twisted misinterpretations as if they are fact.

Yeah, cause Bible verses have only one possible interpretation.

^If they really are supposed to be the Word of God, I'd hope the Almighty would be direct and coherent enough to express himself clearly and unambiguously...and not leave it up for interpretation.

If it's the flawed and corrupted word of Man that's been written and re-written and translated and mis-translated over millenia now, however...

Yep. Plenty of interpretations. You could argue sandwiches are holy so long as you backed it up with some verse or another from the Bible. ;)

ALL HAIL THE BLT!

No, because this particular verse is connected to the one after it. But let's study this more closely...

The greek word for Judge used in Matthew 7:1-6 is krino which means to condem or punish. Passing judgement, therefore, refers to an act of judgement that punishes the judged in Matthew. Scrutinizing via observation is not forbidden here. The follow up part "lest ye be judged" is more accurately translated "as if you won't be judged yourself". So if we put this together, we get "Don't punish others ignoring the fact that you, too, will be punished". It then follows on to state that whatever punishment we dole out shall be doled out to us in the same situation and to the same degree. this is an admonishment to forgive and not punish. But it does not tell us that we can't evaluate a person's spiritual state or their sin. It's what we do after that Matthew 7:1-6 refers to. Do we punish them? Or do we forgive them. For if we are hypocrites and punish their sin in this world, we too shall be punished in the same manner as God's justice is reciprocal.

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Now go make him a sandwich or I will smite thee."

Genesis 3:16

Damn, I wish that were how that verse went at the end. Get me a cigar and a scotch, woman!

Obiwan, your statement implies that life, or a relationship with God, or a relationship with the other people in your life, is or should be easy and straightforward. Wisdom is complicated and requires study and reflection, because reality is complicated and requires study and reflection. Life isn't clear and unambiguous.

"is or should be easy and straightforward."

You misconstrue my point--

Easy?
No.
Straightforward?
Do you expect your boss to be straightforward in his orders?
Do you expect a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient God to at least as coherent as your boss?

"Life isn't clear and unambiguous."

Life is also flawed and and mortal.

God isn't supposed to be either.

Boss? Straightforward? What workd do you live in? hahahahahaha...

And we have the disadvatage of not speaking the language God had His prophets and scribes write His word in.

But let me ask you this... Are you straightforward and honest with your grandma or your mom about your atheism? Why not? Because love (and God loves us and we love him) means not wantign to hurt the other person and honesty can hurt. So God eases us into things and gradually brings on insights so we aren't hurt by the massive influx of knowledge. We hurt Him all the time, but he strives to not overload and hurt us by giving us more than we can handle, and that includes understandign of His Word.

"Boss? Straightforward? What workd do you live in? hahahahahaha..."

Fair enough--but you WISH your boss was straightforward and not a PHB, yes? ;)

I mean, don't you hope your God has more common sense or clarity than the bosses in a Dilbert strip?

"And we have the disadvatage of not speaking the language God had His prophets and scribes write His word in."

I don't buy that one either--surely an all-powerful God could allow His Word to be understood perfectly even in translation? This is the problem with having your God be a perfect, all-powerful, omniscient being--any flaw is one flaw too many, and it's all the more glaring...and this isn't even an issue where the "free will" argument can be brought into play, as we're not talking about the Problem of Evil here, but just about God being able to make himself clear and understandable.

"But let me ask you this... Are you straightforward and honest with your grandma or your mom about your atheism?"

With my mom (the little I talk to her, I really don't talk with my family a lot)--yes.
With my grandma--little old 87-or-so Jewish lady...
She's never asked, so I've never brought it up...
If she asked I'd be honest and tell her, but I have no need to possibly upset an old Jewish granny.

"Why not? Because love (and God loves us and we love him) means not wanting to hurt the other person and honesty can hurt."

...Well, I think my response refuted that logic?

And I use the term "logic" loosely, as you're interjecting God into a place where there's really no need for Him...I'd argue there isn't any place we need Him, but how is God needed in the matter of being honest to one another?

"We hurt Him all the time, but he strives to not overload and hurt us by giving us more than we can handle, and that includes understanding of His Word.

Oh the problems I have with that statement...

1. This I've never gotten, actually--how can we, exactly, to dig up the old phrase, "Make God Cry," as it were? How can we hurt an all-powerful deity? Never mind how much that pumps up the human ego and makes us so terribly self-important (we're so frail we're prostrate before an Almighty Being and yet so powerful we can bruise the ego of the Creator of the Universe?) but...how as that even POSSIBLE, logistically? Tell me how that works, if you assert that it does--how do we (how CAN we) hurt a God, and an all-powerful, perfect one at that?

2. As for "Not giving us more than we can handle," try telling that to just about all of Africa and half of Asia and South America. To the kids with AIDS. To the hundreds of millions caught up in civil war, whether it be religious or merely political. To the fact that there are STILL, in the year 2013, when we produce more food and goods than ever, A BILLION-PLUS people on the planet starving.

Doesn't give us more than we can handle my eye...

3. If His Word is so important...wouldn't understanding his word HELP US, not HURT US?

I mean, that's what so many of these religious wars were and still are fought over, yes?

When groups A, B, and C understand that God three different ways and kill each other over that fact...well, wouldn't a uniform understanding seem to be ideal and, you know, eliminate a good deal of that killing? And HERE is where the "free will" argument will surely come in, but this isn't a free will issue BECAUSE we're not talking about a Problem of Agency or Evil here...

We're just talking about a misunderstanding of God's word, yes?

If groups are wrong in their misunderstanding of God's word, wouldn't that God want them to, well, understand? Wouldn't that help the issue? After all, he went to all the trouble to tell folks to write these things down (albeit write it down after the fact and sometimes hundreds of years after the fact, but I digress)--wouldn't a logical, rational, perfect, all-powerful God WANT that Word to be understood?

Understanding is a blessing, not a burden, yes?

Mmm, bacon.

Let's approach the all powerfula spect. He is all poweful, therefore he can *choose* to be hurt by our actions. It's his choice. He is all-powerful and could swat us like bugs and squish us and think nothing of us. But because he chooses to love us, that means he chooses to take on all aspects of what love entails, including being hurt by those we love.

Let's now talk of perfection. I don't know what being perfect has to do with not being hurt... But it has a lot to do with his choosing to love us and that goes back to his being willing to accept al that loving another entails, including being hurt by them. So actually, his perfection is part of what allows us to hurt him with our thoughts, words, and deeds.

But I'll just let you persist in your delusions. I'm not here to convert you. your own guilty conscience about how you lie to your family will do that.

"He is all poweful, therefore he can *choose* to be hurt by our actions. It's his choice. He is all-powerful and could swat us like bugs and squish us and think nothing of us. But because he chooses to love us, that means he chooses to take on all aspects of what love entails, including being hurt by those we love."

...

Wouldn't we generally classify those who wish to feel pain as masochistic?

Granted this is the same deity who sent His Son to be brutally whipped and die for our sins, so I'll believe that in God's case...but still--

He chooses to feel pain? O.o You're really suggesting the Almighty can't choose to love us and not squish us like bugs but likewise not get his ego bruised by us? Or that he can choose that...but doesn't...because pain is necessary for true love?

In the case of humans--maybe.
That's a really complex matter and I could see both sides of the coin there.
But God's not human...not flawed...not supposed to be...
So he can't have his cake and eat it too? Or if he can, he chooses not to, because...?

"I don't know what being perfect has to do with not being hurt"

To put it another way--

I think it's well established I'm no fan of Stephen King.
That being said...
Stephen King is without a doubt one of the most successful authors in American history.
Hands down.

Stephen King couldn't care less what a THOUSAND Obis had to say or criticize about him.
He's Stephen King!
Along with J.K. Rowling, arguably the most famous, recognized, popular and rich mainstream novelist alive today!
To entertain the concept...

Stephen King is, at the moment, a "god" in the Writing Pantheon of the Present, if you will.

Whether he "graduates" to that greater of pantheons, the Canon, and gets to sit up on a cloud (or on a bookshelf) next to the Shakespeares and Poes and Austens and so on and so forth...that's yet to be seen...but for as long as the man lives and doesn't, say, pull a Mel Gibson, as it were--he's golden.

He is NOT going to get hurt by my feeble criticisms. Nor should he be.

The same principle holds for God when I talk about his perfection and how odd it is he should be hurt--

The Creator of the Universe REALLY is "hurt" by what I have to say?
Really?
He's that insecure or has that thin skin?

"So actually, his perfection is part of what allows us to hurt him with our thoughts, words, and deeds."

That makes no sense whatsoever.
Pain and perfection do NOT go together.
That doesn't mean that pain is something to be ashamed of...
It's perfectly understandable for us, we all feel pain...
But we're all imperfect, all frail to one degree or another--
God isn't, not in his description, anyway.

"But I'll just let you persist in your delusions. I'm not here to convert you. your own guilty conscience about how you lie to your family will do that."

Well, first, how condescending and back-handed of you...Christian kindness at its finest...

But second--how am I lying to my family? O.o
I said my mom knows...
My dad and sister know (for all I talk to them, which again, isn't much)...
My grandparents have never asked, why would I bring it up at Thanksgiving, that's just being an obnoxious prick and a way to start a fight...

So how am I lying? O.o

And what guilty conscience am I supposed to have?

I've told the people I told you I told (my that was a convoluted sentence)...

Am I supposed to feel guilty I haven't told an 87-year old, 4-foot-10-inch Jewish granny who needs a cane to stand up and never asked or cared?

Really, where am I supposed to feel any guilt there?

He created them in His own image. We humams are created in God's own image so to have he experience emotional pain (very different from physical pain) is only cpunter to a militant atheists refusal to accept others views as valid.

Oh and obi - I'm a deist with Christian leanings. That is, I don't know if Jesus was the sone of God but he was a righteous man and there is a God but he isn't necessarily the God of the NT and is in no way the God of the OT.

Obi I will avoid the little rabbit hole you and Draug are going down, to say, when you describe God in terms of "boss" then you are using the wrong metaphor. For this particular case I think "teacher" or "leader" or "Father" would be a better analogy. It's not a matter of God giving us instructions about how to use the copier.

"Obi I will avoid the little rabbit hole you and Draug are going down, to say, when you describe God in terms of "boss" then you are using the wrong metaphor. For this particular case I think "teacher" or "leader" or "Father" would be a better analogy. It's not a matter of God giving us instructions about how to use the copier."

OK--I'll use teacher then, or leader...

But wouldn't you want your teacher to be clear about what they want and what they have to say?
Wouldn't you want your leader to be clear as well?

It brings to mind the scene in "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" where, frustrated by the (to him) seemingly-random actions of the rest of Elsinore Court who are just going on with the plot of "Hamlet" regardless of his efforts to get a clear answer as to what's going on, Rosencrantz bursts out--

"Consistency is all I ask!"

Wouldn't you want consistency and clarity from the Almighty especially?

"He created them in His own image. We humams are created in God's own image so to have he experience emotional pain (very different from physical pain) is only cpunter to a militant atheists refusal to accept others views as valid."

1. ...I think even non-militant atheists and agnostics would be with me on this one...

Not to mention the many skeptics down through the ages.

How does "in his own image" explain why he'd choose to feel pain?
It doesn't.
WE experience pain...I'm not questioning that...
My question was why GOD should feel pain...and if it's emotional pain--

Why would a perfect God have negative emotions?
That seems to anthropomorphize God a bit too much...
He's unbounded by Space and Time, All-Knowing, but he still has all the emotional frailty of Hamlet?

It seems to me like you're projecting Man's frailties back onto God, and thus creating him in your own image, rather than the other way around--Man making God, not God making man.

And I don't accept your view as valid because you haven't logically-supported it.

Why would a perfect God feel pain, or choose to feel pain?
Pain is something that comes with bodily and psychological frailty...
Surely God has no "body" to bruise (at least not in the conventional sense)...
And if God is perfect, surely he has a perfect, at-ease psyche...
Otherwise he'd have an imperfection and cease to be perfect?

So why the pain?

It's a bit like answering the classic question "Can God create a stone he cannot lift?" with a common theistic answer, "He can but chooses not to/can and then chooses not to move the stone."

So God can be perfect and leave pain behind...but chooses not to?
Why?
Your reason given above was that you need pain for true love...
And while that may or may not follow with humans...
God isn't human (leaving Jesus out of this for the moment.)
Surely God can love and love truly sans the pain?
If he can--then why the pain?
If he can't--then that's something he cannot do, and he ceases to be all-powerful.

"Oh and obi - I'm a deist with Christian leanings. That is, I don't know if Jesus was the sone of God but he was a righteous man and there is a God but he isn't necessarily the God of the NT and is in no way the God of the OT."

Fantastic.

That still doesn't explain why I should feel any guilt for being open with my immediate family about my atheism but not open to an 87-year old grandmother who's never asked and sees me maybe 4-6 times a year...what guilt am I supposed to feel, exactly?

Obi: It depends on what is being taught. The Bible isn't really an instruction book; it's not about how to be a good person. It's about how to have a relationship with God and how you should love your fellow man; being a good person (the "fruits of the Spirit") will follow from that.

"Can God create a stone he cannot lift?"

The correct answer is: I don't know, but God probably doesn't feel compelled to play silly logic games.

" The Bible isn't really an instruction book; it's not about how to be a good person. It's about how to have a relationship with God and how you should love your fellow man"

...To be fair...

I think at best we could say it's all three of those?

I mean, books like Deuteronomy and Leviticus and sections of other texts are pretty much instruction manuals, or Do/Do Not guides, at least...

And then the theists would likely argue that we derive our morals from the Bible...and while I disagree with that to a large extent, the Bible does concern itself with (what it considers to be, at least) moral teachings from Exodus' Decalogue to Jesus' Sermon...

As for "loving your fellow man," I cite all the usual examples against that idea which I always do...

Instructions on how to beat your slave?
Not very loving.
Saul slaughtering the Amalekites in 1 Samuel with God's OK?
Not very loving, even with that OK (which does NOT make genocide OK, but anyway...)
Antisemitic contexts in Matthew and John?
Not very loving.
God drowning everyone (including babies?!) except Noah and his family?
Not very loving (really, were there just no babies at the time, or did God drown THEM?)

Surely the babies weren't wicked and evil?

That's...that's not loving...at all...lol. ;)

"The correct answer is: I don't know, but God probably doesn't feel compelled to play silly logic games."

God's just an old stick in the mud then. :p