Atheists what is your proof?

[AlexG]

I haven't changed it. It has been mistranslated.
Truth is not the issue here. The issue is what it actually says,
and whether it makes sense.

Why aren't you bothered about understanding the real hebrew
meaning of the bible?
Why are you satisfied with the contradictory mistranslation?

For example, it doesn't say that Adam and Eve were the first humans.
It doesn't even hide the fact that they weren't.
And it doesn't say that the whole planet was covered in water.


jan.

What it actually says does not make sense. Therefore, rather than simply admitting that it does not make sense, you will tortureously abuse the meanings of words and claim that it's a mistranslation.

A believer can convince themselves of anything with no effort at all.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What it actually says does not make sense. Therefore, rather than simply admitting that it does not make sense, you will tortureously abuse the meanings of words and claim that it's a mistranslation.

A believer can convince themselves of anything with no effort at all.

So you don't the KJV has any mistranslations?

jan.

 

[chaos1956]

The numbering, and the fact they had beginnings and ends, implies a regular day. Sorry to rain on your parade.

This was the entire point, that God could create everything in such a short time. Make it longer, and you miss the point. You can't apologise for everything without compromise or contradiction.

So what if God, whoever he may be, can or can not create everything. You can't either. Oops, I think I told a lie somewhere in that sentence. I have noted my contradiction, but how far can you make the compromise?

 

[dhcracker]

Did the emporer of rome write the texts?
Where does it damn those to hell who say's it not Gods' word?
How do you know the authors of the books were not inspired by God?

jan.

Ok here you go..

Rev 22

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book."

Deut 4

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Actually if bible literalists want to be literal, then toss out the whole bible after deut 4 because its ADDED TO the bible and the rest of the bible is treated equal to the torah by christians for no good reason.

The bible is a compilation of books selected ultimately by the Roman Empire, they were ordered to make a single gospel out of all the books circulating at the time.. one single doctrine which reflected how the empire needed its population to believe more than it worried about consistency through the books.

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21)


and since you believe God inspired the words of your bible in its entirety then you have to explain why God would double talk to you and consistently contradict himself.. sometimes one author even contradicts himself and then goes on to proclaim there work is perfect and if anyone tries to fix it they will go to hell more or less.... pretty arrogant if you ask me.

In the meaning of the bible, the word “inspiration” means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God and makes the Bible unique among all other books.

I corinthians 2:12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

Timothy seems to go further II timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.



Now before I show you how crooked and contradictory the bible is. Lets not try to be bible literal and yet pull stuff like "thats not what the scripture means" words are self explanatory, what is said is exactly what is meant I don't want to get into alternate definitions of words.. simply take it as it is written and try to tell me why God would tell you to do one thing and then in the next "breath" tell you to do the opposite.

Lets go right to the heart of Christianity, I am going to show you how God apparently doesn't know his own son's geneology.

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

Who was Josephs father heli or jacob?

Is Jesus lesser than or equal to God?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Is Jesus of Davids "flesh" or a literal son of God which means he is not of Davids lineage at all...

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Did Judas die twice?? haha
ACT 1:18: "Now this man (Judas) purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

MAT 27:5-7: "And he (Judas) cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. And the chief priests...bought with them the potter's field."

They can't even agree on Jesus's last words...

MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Now a big problem, matthew and luke both give the lineage of Jesus Math 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31 however the only two common names in those lines is from David to Jesus??? JOSEPH then this begs to question if Jesus is devine as muslims and christians both say then how does he have a lineage period.

How many times did the Cock crow??

MAR 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

MAT 26:74 Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
MAT 26:75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

LUK 22:60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.
LUK 22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.

JOH 13:38 Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, still thou hast denied me thrice.

JOH 18:27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the cock crew.

How many beatitudes??

How many beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount

MAT 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
MAT 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
MAT 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
MAT 5:7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
MAT 5:8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
MAT 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
MAT 5:10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
MAT 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

LUK 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
LUK 6:21 Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.
LUK 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
LUK 6:23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

Do we all sin or not??

1KI 8:46 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near;

2CH 6:36 If they sin against thee, (for there is no man which sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them over before their enemies, and they carry them away captives unto a land far off or near;

PRO 20:9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?

ECC 7:20 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.

JO1 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
JO1 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
JO1 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

JO1 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.


Now lets jump to the big event... the basis of your faith is the resurrection now if your bible gives different stories of the same event how can you sit there and say its inspired by god and factual?? Did they kill jesus one time for every author of the bible?? Or is your bible a work of men who believe they are accurate yet are not.. once you realize this you have to ask if any of it is true at all.. if so which parts? Heck the bible doesn't even agree that Jesus was divine, and lets not forget we are tossing out lots of books of christianity that the roman empire didn't want in their state religion.

How many apostles were in office between the resurrection and ascension?

1 Corinthians 15:5 (12)
MAT 27:3-5 (minus one from 12)
ACT 1:9-26 (Mathias not elected until after resurrection)

MAT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

Who was at the tomb??

MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

What did they give Jesus to drink on the cross??


MAT 27:34 vinegar

If that doesn't make you doubt that your bible is no better or actually less consistent than other religions books which are mostly written by one author then you are lost and using that book just to justify your own hopes.. lame

If you need more evidence go here

http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical Contradictions.htm

MAR 15:23 wine with myrrh

 

[AlexG]

So you don't the KJV has any mistranslations?

jan.

So any word you don't like the meaning of is a mistranslation? So the word 'day' is a mistranslation?

 

[Kernl Sandrs]

If I can jump in here, can I ask all of you a brief question?

From what I've read, a lot of you are referring to "god" or this entity with words like "he" "him" "his".

I was just curious why you all think an all-powerful entity with a god-like status would have a penis...

I can't imagine a being like that to have a gender. To me that would seem to indicate that the purpose of having reproductive organs it to...well...reproduce, on a purely biological level. Why would a god need to reproduce?

Although to play devils advocate, I suppose when those guys were making this stuff up *cough* I mean writing this down, it might be that back then they couldn't understand the concept of a genderless thing, so, being the males that they were, since males were dominant, make their god a male, too.



so...yeah...answers?

 

[AlexG]

so...yeah...answers?

If you look at the world that an omniscient, omnipotent god made, it's obvious that he's a big dick.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

And in some cases I have. But even current translations of Hebrew aren't infallible. As I said before, languages change and evolve over time. To apply modern-day meanings to ancient texts is just plain stupid. And that is precisely what you are doing, which is why your perspective is irrelevant.

A big issue of course is that you don't know hebrew and have never learned to think in Hebrew; therefore, grammar and message structure that clearly set the context for intended definitions (whether they be explicitly mapped to modern concepts or accressed from ancient primitives) wont be available to you.

However, I am happy to falsify your interpretations. Show me the relevant snippets of original hebrew, your "interpretation", and I'll show you how it's incorrect and of falsify your god in the process.

Not the translations (necessarily) but the interpretations. Day as an example, even in today's language can mean an epoch, and yet you refuse to accept that as a meaning for Genesis 1's use of the word. Upon what grounds? You have yet to provide any, which is why your position is barely worth my time to respond.

The word "יוֹם" means day to night. It is also contextually linked to gods creation of day and night. It literally means a day when its used.

I said any because my proposal is such that ANY text must be looked at through the lens of the time in which it was written, but translations are invariably provided in the lens of the time in which it was translated, and that gap is prone to error. SO, ANY translation is going to be subject to generous interpretation.

Good, then so is yours and it's already wrong by your own rules.

Do you honestly not understand the difference between the words interpret and translate? You applied your interpretation to a translation you selected, and ignored my interpretation. As long as that is your approach, you aren't worth talking to.

Your interpretation isn't based on anything meaningful if you aren't using a language you know. Like I said, if you want to go the path of hebrew then you have some work ahead of ya'.

I find it hard to believe that you can truly be this obtuse. My claim is that to understand the Biblical God we must think about things in the context of the authors (not the translators) of the Bible.

FFS, don't say it, do it.

Furthermore, we must recognize that these people didn't even have a language that was adequate to fully convey the meanings of things that were revealed to them by God. So, to apply their vision of God to our modern-day knowledge, we must apply our modern-day knowledge to what they did write down. Noah's environment is a prime example. Regardless of the word they used, his knowledge of "the world" would have been restricted to the areas travelled by him and those he knew (and those that they knew). Thus, a depiction of a flood of the world he knew would have simply used words that apply to "the world". Just because we have since learned that the world is much bigger doesn't magically increase the scope of the flood, as you would attempt to make people believe. And the worst part about your position is that you don't even believe it. You are painting a picture that you can show to be false just so you can show it to be false. You are resistant to a picture that you cannot show to be false because you don't want to be wrong. To that, I say grow up.

God made it clear that his intent was demolish all life on the planet. There is zero room for misintepreting that even when looking at the original hebrew. The context of the words used to describe the locale is built up and unchanged from the initial creation of the planet.

Here's the thing, it's a fantasy story and no matter how much you interpret it, no matter how much you redefine it, no matter how much you believe it, it's ultimate claim of a biblical god existing will turn up wrong. We can go the path hebrew as an exercise if you like; however, your modified claim of your god as being the biblical god is already falsified. I'm happy to take you through the motions of that demonstration.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat,
What's the point of "Assuming"?

It entertains SolusCado's argument.

Why wouldn't he be a real person?

The bible as a habit of making assertions that are not true.

The bible does not say that the flood covered the earth,
that is a mistranslation. The hebrew word used is eh-retz which means the land,
meaning the flood covered a particular part of the earth.

The word "ארץ" means country, land; earth, ground, geo-; territory. God clearly sets his target to all life across all his territory in genesis.

 

[SnakeLord]

The validity of the story is only lost if you are still trying to apply a story based on a now non-existent element.

I disagree and have explained why. If we view the biblical flood as simply referring to a local flood, the rest of the story falls out of whack. Every sentence in the entire saga needs to be specifically rendered in a different manner than perfectly qualified translators managed to come up with. And for what reason precisely should we do this? On your word alone? This qualified translator vs that qualified translator? Oh, if only god was not the author of confusion.

Incidentally, the Bible never says that God regretted making anything

The NIV, HASB and Amplified do indeed say that, (Gen 6:6). In most others it says he was 'sorry that he had made..' which equates to the same thing. The KJV says it "repented him".

Christians should have enough faith to question their beliefs

Contradiction in terms. "Having enough faith" negates there being anything to question. What you actually mean is that christians who take it on faith that the story is literally true, have too much faith. They should drop the faith and apply critical thinking and reasoning based not on holy books but on science.

Regarding atheists, I am calling them out for refusing to engage in interpretations for which they don't have a prepared argument

What are you talking about? Who is refusing and where? Your accusation is baseless.

If you are so sure of your position, you should be able to entertain new theories and discuss their merits

What position is that? We can discuss any assertions, (not "theories"), that you want - nobody has ever said otherwise.

These are the claims and theories and modern archaeologists and biblical scholars.

With respect, the claims of those "biblical scholars" are contradicted and counter-claimed by other biblical scholars. Your appeal to authority has no valid basis.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

1. I'd prefer a scholarly page if you have one.
2. The author is a Mormon. No point here, just mentioning it.
3. It would only take ten seconds to point out a different web page that says otherwise.
4. The author has no relevant qualifications.

Surely we can come up with something better than this? Having said that, I don't really care either way. I already know that no global flood happened, hence those christians who think it so are in error. I have no quarrel with a claim that a local flood once happened - they happen all the time.

I am more than happy to just let the 'New Christians' dismantle their very own holy text. So far, the planet is billions of years old, Adam and Eve didn't really exist, a global flood that led to the need to repopulate the earth and save all the animals never happened etc and so on. If it continues at it's current rate, christians would have argued themselves out of christianity by the end of the decade.

Who knows, before long we might even see christians forgetting about planned design and instead accepting evolution. Oops, too late. Maybe they'll denounce Jesus divinity given that 'almah' doesn't actually mean virgin. Oh but no, criticism of translation only happens when theists want to have their cake and eat it.

I could use the term hypothesis if you prefer

It's not a hypothesis either. Claim or assertion will fit better.

Regards,

 

[dhcracker]

I disagree and have explained why. If we view the biblical flood as simply referring to a local flood, the rest of the story falls out of whack. Every sentence in the entire saga needs to be specifically rendered in a different manner than perfectly qualified translators managed to come up with. And for what reason precisely should we do this? On your word alone? This qualified translator vs that qualified translator? Oh, if only god was not the author of confusion.



The NIV, HASB and Amplified do indeed say that, (Gen 6:6). In most others it says he was 'sorry that he had made..' which equates to the same thing. The KJV says it "repented him".



Contradiction in terms. "Having enough faith" negates there being anything to question. What you actually mean is that christians who take it on faith that the story is literally true, have too much faith. They should drop the faith and apply critical thinking and reasoning based not on holy books but on science.



What are you talking about? Who is refusing and where? Your accusation is baseless.



What position is that? We can discuss any assertions, (not "theories"), that you want - nobody has ever said otherwise.



With respect, the claims of those "biblical scholars" are contradicted and counter-claimed by other biblical scholars. Your appeal to authority has no valid basis.



1. I'd prefer a scholarly page if you have one.
2. The author is a Mormon. No point here, just mentioning it.
3. It would only take ten seconds to point out a different web page that says otherwise.
4. The author has no relevant qualifications.

Surely we can come up with something better than this? Having said that, I don't really care either way. I already know that no global flood happened, hence those christians who think it so are in error. I have no quarrel with a claim that a local flood once happened - they happen all the time.

I am more than happy to just let the 'New Christians' dismantle their very own holy text. So far, the planet is billions of years old, Adam and Eve didn't really exist, a global flood that led to the need to repopulate the earth and save all the animals never happened etc and so on. If it continues at it's current rate, christians would have argued themselves out of christianity by the end of the decade.

Who knows, before long we might even see christians forgetting about planned design and instead accepting evolution. Oops, too late. Maybe they'll denounce Jesus divinity given that 'almah' doesn't actually mean virgin. Oh but no, criticism of translation only happens when theists want to have their cake and eat it.



It's not a hypothesis either. Claim or assertion will fit better.

Regards,

You I feel also are a tad unrealistic, most religious people actually are using some logic and reason.. however it is more apt to be based on hopes and wishes than actual raw data and experience.

I don't like your use of the word faith, faith in its most simple term is belief in a prediction. As scientists use speculation, and take that and make it into theory.. sometimes theory is based on speculation and as such even scientific predictions require a little faith.

However that doesn't mean we don't question the outcomes thats exactly what science is actually, there is no factual science it is all based on probabilities even the theories that are considered "factual" You always have to leave room to be proved wrong.

And christian simply means christ like, so if you go by the red words of the bible and apply those to how you treat people then I'm not ok with christians going away because that would imply everyone is arrogant and jerks or unkind and non-tolerant. The problem is Christianity is sometimes not doing what its purpose is and that is merely living with a little kindness and tolerance. Jesus himself would hang with anyone, it would be like me being a christian yet hanging out with my buddies the athiests and treating them well. Jesus never told anyone what to believe he merely told them how they should behave.

In other words christianity has been hijacked since the very instant a "bible" was compiled and passed off as "holy". But religious people didn't do that, governing bodies did that and turned christianity into what it is today.

I often wonder what the gnostics were like, I would imagine they were probably much more tolerant people and open minded and thats why they were rounded up and wiped out.

 

[SnakeLord]

most religious people actually are using some logic and reason.. however it is more apt to be based on hopes and wishes than actual raw data and experience

Hopes and wishes are not logic and reason. This is not to say that religious people cannot ever apply logic and reasoning - of course they can - but such things have nothing whatsoever to do with 'faith'. Of course it's worth noting that I never said otherwise - and you only quoted my text in full, so I am unsure specifically what you are responding to.

I don't like your use of the word faith, faith in its most simple term is belief in a prediction

1. It's of no consequence if you like it or not.

2. "Faith" in biblical terms is "confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see".

3. Your definition, ("belief in a prediction"), doesn't really say anything that argues against my definition. I predict the world will end tomorrow and believe it, (hence belief in that prediction). It still means belief in something without any evidence.

4. If you have enough faith in god's word, (or that the bible reflects god's word), then there is simply nothing to question. It is only when you don't have enough faith that we see christians denouncing their own holy text as fiction.

As scientists use speculation, and take that and make it into theory.. sometimes theory is based on speculation and as such even scientific predictions require a little faith.

Common science-uneducated nonsense. Yes, scientists 'speculate' and then produce a hypothesis, (if such and such then such and such). The hypothesis is fully testable but upon confirmation, it doesn't then become a "theory" and "theory" does not mean in science what it does in the public sphere. And no, science does not require "faith".

But let's examine this word.. "faith".

The problem is misunderstanding of the term itself. It is generally used in two different ways. The first way, (the religious way), is belief in that which has no evidence. Arguably the greatest religious apologist alive today, (William Lane Craig), uses it in this fashion, as do all theists. He asserts that he believes and "knows" something is true because he feels it inside. This is 'faith' as the christian would explain it. This is not the same as the "faith" you would label that I have that my car will start tomorrow morning.

That is not "faith", it is inductive reasoning based upon continual and consistent observation of my car starting in the morning. That's not to say that it necessarily will, but that the assertion or "belief" is founded and rooted upon consistent observation of it doing just that.

there is no factual science it is all based on probabilities even the theories that are considered "factual" You always have to leave room to be proved wrong.

With all due respect but you show complete ignorance of what science is and involves. Yes, science is always tentative - falsifiability is essential in the realms of science and it's something that theistic claims lack. There are, in science, facts - and facts are clearly not what you think they are. In your version of the world, a "fact" is an absolute (proof). There is and can be no such thing outside of mathematics and logical concepts. I have explained all of this already somewhere around here so won't do it again.

And christian simply means christ like

Which means what exactly? You would confess that you're a constant sinner. Is that what you mean by "christ like"? What do you mean sir?

In other words christianity has been hijacked since the very instant a "bible" was compiled and passed off as "holy"

Sure, but you have done absolutely nothing to show that it isn't in fact you who is doing the hijacking. If you can explain your authority then I'm all ears. It does, unfortunately, seem to simply be a case of "my christianity is better than your christianity because I say so" which, with respect, is worthless.

Regards,

 

[chaos1956]

Any form of open-mindedness is inspiration. God made words, people take them out of context. The fact people take them "out of context" implies they want to share something. In doing you they may share it incorrectly. Who is at fault, certainly not god as we all have free will. For me I would like to blame all people. We are all god in our own ways, but still we use these ways in the incorrect manner. We put them on proofs to justify our own existence instead of realizing the overall manner is that the only way to prove the negative of god is to look through his eyes ourself. But as we do, we should try hard to not become a monster. It might be hard for some of you.:tempted:

 

[SnakeLord]

God made words

Evidence please. The reality here is that you're just making up baseless waffle simply for the sake of it. The reality of the situation is that language has evolved - and whilst not entirely understood, is certainly at a more progressed state of understanding than the naivete of "god did it".

Who is at fault, certainly not god as we all have free will

Please provide evidence that we have this "free will". Again, you're simply making a baseless assertion simply to back up unevidenced beliefs.

Let's work on this problem and then move on, heh?

 

[SolusCado]

I agree it seems that alone should wake them up. Listen guys the bible WAS NOT DICTATED BY A SUPREME INTELLIGENCE.

If anyone still believes the bible is 100% accurate and was literally put in the heads of the authors then please say so, and I will educate you and show you why that is impossible. I'll show you how MAN and not only man but an emperor or Rome put our bible together and decided POLITICALLY what would be in it or not. Actually the most sensible gospels and books of theology were the discarded Gnostic books. If you compare the "red letter" or what is considered as the most sensible wisdom of the book, and you compare it to each authors style and prejudices its obvious the bible was written by man and inspired by the authors own perspective very heavily.

I'm not saying its bad, or entirely false. I am saying its no more inspired by God than your posts are.

"but the bible says its gods word and anyone that changes it is damned to hell" No the bible doesn't, it says in a couple books of that bible that those books ALONE are not to be changed and are inspired by God. Most books of the bible make no such claims at all so that scripture your preachers take as gold is false in its applied use. When those books were written they were STAND ALONE BOOKS AND LETTERS, paul or john didn't know they would end up with their books held just as high as the torah itself and if they did know that they probably would have OBJECTED to having a christian "bible" period.

If you want me to show the evidence for this, I will.. from your own bible.

You are talking about the New Testament, not the Old. I actually don't recognize the New Testament as scripture because it says itself that scripture is complete, and when that was written "scripture" was just the Old Testament. That does not however stop me from following the teachings of Christ, and as such a follower calling myself Christian.

 

[SolusCado]

You I feel also are a tad unrealistic, most religious people actually are using some logic and reason.. however it is more apt to be based on hopes and wishes than actual raw data and experience.

I don't like your use of the word faith, faith in its most simple term is belief in a prediction. As scientists use speculation, and take that and make it into theory.. sometimes theory is based on speculation and as such even scientific predictions require a little faith.

However that doesn't mean we don't question the outcomes thats exactly what science is actually, there is no factual science it is all based on probabilities even the theories that are considered "factual" You always have to leave room to be proved wrong.

And christian simply means christ like, so if you go by the red words of the bible and apply those to how you treat people then I'm not ok with christians going away because that would imply everyone is arrogant and jerks or unkind and non-tolerant. The problem is Christianity is sometimes not doing what its purpose is and that is merely living with a little kindness and tolerance. Jesus himself would hang with anyone, it would be like me being a christian yet hanging out with my buddies the athiests and treating them well. Jesus never told anyone what to believe he merely told them how they should behave.

In other words christianity has been hijacked since the very instant a "bible" was compiled and passed off as "holy". But religious people didn't do that, governing bodies did that and turned christianity into what it is today.

I often wonder what the gnostics were like, I would imagine they were probably much more tolerant people and open minded and thats why they were rounded up and wiped out.

I agree completely.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So any word you don't like the meaning of is a mistranslation? So the word 'day' is a mistranslation?

This doesn't answer the question.
Yes because it's taken to mean our understanding of the length of a day.
We know the world can't develop in such a short space of time, and we've
no reason to think God didn't allow nature to act in it's capacity, and by it's laws. It

A reasonable assumption would be that God initiated the process from
somewhere where one day would be relative to each of the development stages of the earth. And the heavens having been created and established,
makes that region of the universe (most likely the topmost region) a contender.

The fact that some christians interpret that as 7 24-hour days, does not
mean that that is what it means. And disagreement with their ideas does not
mean I am looking for a meaning to fit my world view.
Which, incidentally, is what you do by purposely accepting the most unlikely
view, as the only truth that can be accepted.

jan.

 

[phlogistician]

If you look at the world that an omniscient, omnipotent god made, it's obvious that he's a big dick.

Bada BING!

 

[ULTRA]

I recently got banned from my usual forum for railing against anti-religeous, un-substantiated attacks. Put my head above the parapet and whack! Basically I said, If you want to persue an athiest agenda do it honestly, with counter-arguements (such as the recently discovered part of the brain that deals with religeous stuff).
I sincerely hope that this forum is more learned than the old one as this stuff should be debated. I look forwards to meeting everybody.

Ultra

 

[chaos1956]

Evidence please. The reality here is that you're just making up baseless waffle simply for the sake of it. The reality of the situation is that language has evolved - and whilst not entirely understood, is certainly at a more progressed state of understanding than the naivete of "god did it".



Please provide evidence that we have this "free will". Again, you're simply making a baseless assertion simply to back up unevidenced beliefs.

Let's work on this problem and then move on, heh?

Your saying God didn't make evolution or that God has given. You are obviously a atheist that does not understand this Negative perception of God. You can not prove a negative weather you are an atheist or a religious NUT. Which also means that you can not disprove it. The only way to do so is to banish the God made word entirely and assign it to an object, or a person then explain your perception of this world to your grandmother. Here is your choice of free will. You can ignore me completely. Or you can read my posts. It took my free will to post them, did it not take some of your free will to read them? You are saying you had no choice, but to comment on my post? Or am I the only one with this "level" of "free will"? Do I have the right to speak with such conviction?