Atheists what is your proof?

[dhcracker]

You are of course welcome to believe anything you like for whatever reason you like. But I was answering the question of why I didn't believe the NT was the "Word of God" and it was because one of the initial leaders of my faith didn't think so either.

Yet he wrote that in the NT, so you must doubt its validity. What about after deuteronomy it also says its complete.

Come on man - why is everyone suddenly trying to put words in my mouth? Do any of you really think I am so stupid as to fall for that? What did I say to suggest "genetic superiority"? As for a genetic marker, do you deny that different races have different genes? If the ability to communicate with God was indeed a genetic change, it doesn't require racism to recognize the need to protect a bloodline to ensure the gene gets incorporated into a sufficient number of people before allowing dilution. This isn't racism; it's biology.

Because you are rationalizing there being a "chosen race" with absolutely no data or evidence. Yes I am aware people are different, however so is a car and an airplane that doesn't mean I'm going to rationalize my faith by stating maybe a car can fly too and we don't know it. Also you say "dilution" when genes are not diluted they are mixed and I believe what the end result of that mixing is a superior human with the best genes sticking around for survival and environment. The mere fact you believe a bloodline has to stay "intact" in order to be somehow better than one that isn't suggests some very very troubling rationality going on. I beg you to reconsider your position and the evidence with a new perspective.

No, and the only issue I have with "Catholics" (as opposed to the Church) is when they carry on the traditions started with the Church 2,000 years ago.

Some of them do seem silly, but they don't hurt anyone. I actually used to make fun of confession but once I tried it out just for the new experience and I was actually shocked at how helpful having a sworn to secrecy confidant could be. The 2,000 year old tradition seems to make the notion that you can talk to a priest about ANYTHING and be assured everyone in town isn't going to know very probable, so I really didn't doubt being able to discuss things he may find offensive yet still not worry about what other people would think. I was shocked at how tolerant that priest was really, changed my opinion of the people had I been at a baptist fundamental church I would have probably been held down and doused with holy water or something haha.

Yeah, that was addressed to Lori, so I never looked at it. I will respond to it with my next post.

And because lori didn't defend your faith you let that stand? If I was a card carrying baptist or not agnostic I would have jumped all over that.. and please when you respond do it without "interpreting" or looking up alternate or questionable definitions of words. That isn't helpful it just states maybe by 1/1000 odds the bible is misunderstood and maybe it isn't.

Close, but not quite. I base my faith on the belief that God is real and has revealed himself in some capacity or another to many people throughout history. I believe the Israelites were the first to make such revelations a part of their life, and the OT is the ultimate result of that. I also believe that God acts through his creation, not in spite of it. This means that it is incumbent upon us to recognize God in creation, not to expect some magic tricks to do it for us. In recognition of that, and in combination with the OT, I believe there were things recognized to be God's work in History, and the missing piece (given a lack of knowledge at the time) is how God did such things (again, through his creation, not in spite of it). This ultimately means that there should be some sort of scientific explanation for everything in the Bible, and understanding how, where, and why is an interest of mine. Genetically different Hebrews is one idea that fits the bill. (So far at least.)

Only there is no science to genes that allow you to talk to God.

I tell you what I believe is more likely.

If there is a God that God is timeless, that God would have to be seperated from our dimension and yet be able to manipulate it or enter and exit it.. or maybe in the least have programmed it. Intelligence leads to an overall "goodness" or lack of sin you might say, or lack of doing bad or harmful things and wanting to do good things and share knowledge. If there is a creator he may be exactly like us in all but intelligence, and maybe our purpose is to evolve to that level and thus be able to I dunno repopulate worlds or keep the guy company. Maybe just maybe I could see us for example in millions of years trying to create intelligent life to populate the universe or even make universes filled with life and good things.

So eventually I see our religions have to evolve, progress and social justice must be improved constantly and that means our ethics also must be improved and refined. We have to cross the gap between cultures somehow.

And I think everyone should be aware that anyone that would punish someone for simply living in a different environment is not all knowing.

Time to grow up and write some more books on theology really as a species.

Anyway God may exist but as the bible has the religion that is not an all knowing God. We have evolved and grown enough to know some of those ways are not good anymore or beneficial to our survival or "preservation".

Maybe at one time it may have been beneficial for a culture to remain segregated from things that would damage humanity as a whole.. that time however is past.

 

[gmilam]

Because we should all want the Kingdom of God, those spiritual concerns, to be part of our daily lives. That is how we get closer to God here on Earth. What did you think it meant?

It is obviously asking for the kingdom of god to physically come to Earth. Which is what Revelations also says is going to happen.

 

[SolusCado]

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.

Actually, Deut 4 sounds to me like it is saying that when God says something, don't change it. If he tells you x=y, don't provide your own commentary. It does not say that he has finished talking to people. The verse in Revelations clearly applies to the Revelations themselves, nothing else.

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.

Agreed.

"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.

You're going to have to provide specific examples of this, which you have not yet done.

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.

OK; not hearing a problem so far...

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.

This is applying the same inerrancy of scripture to translations and interpretations, of which no claim is ever made. Why do you get to decide that only one meaning is allowed?

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?

I have noted before that in other areas of the OT, where lineages are provided like this, I believe the intent is to refer to family trees, not inviduals. IOW, Joseph was of the tree of Heli. His father Jacob would also have been of the tree of Heli.

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.

There are many schools of thought on this, but one that makes sense to me is that Christ is saying that he (like the rest of us) is part of God. We are all sons of God. God is a part of each and every one of us (kind of like the Force in Star Wars). However, Christ also acknowledges that he ISN'T "The Father", and that his Father is greater.

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

I'd have to look into the lineage stuff, but I have certainly come across names in the past that actually have the same meaning, even though they look different to us. They are in fact the same names.

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;

Not sure what you are getting at with this verse.

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.

Or this one.

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."

I am not personally familiar with these verses, but from what I recall, Judas not only hung himself but also cut open his stomach so that his "bowels gushed out".

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."

These were all perspectives of different people, who no doubt heard different things. These were NOT inspirations from God, but rather direct testaments of their experiences.

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.

See my comment above re: lineages.

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.

So are you suggesting that because some of the testaments didn't explicitly note that the cock crowed twince then that means it must have only crowed once? Seems like a pretty flimsy position to me.

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.

I don't know - count them... Why are you bringing that up?

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.

Yes, once we are "born-again" we do not sin, but that doesn't mean we never did. And remember, "to sin" means simply to fall short of perfection. Once "born again" we are completed into perfection through Christ. Whether we "commit sins" or not is irrelevant; we are still made perfect through Christ.

Now lets jump to the big event... the basis of your faith is the resurrection

No, it's not. The resurrection has little to do with my faith.

now if your bible gives different stories of the same event how can you sit there and say its inspired by god and factual??

I never said the NT WAS inspired by God.

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.

More comments on the NT, to which I refer back to my previous statement.

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

I'm afraid I've gotten tired of and don't have time to read through all these comments to justify a point that I have never even made.

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

Umm, the state of the NT bothers me quite a bit, which is why I also read the Gnostic Gospels and other teachings of the early church fathers.

 

[SolusCado]

It is obviously asking for the kingdom of god to physically come to Earth. Which is what Revelations also says is going to happen.

Obviously, huh? I had no idea we had someone who actually knew the mind of God, and the authors of the NT so well. Are there other minds you can read as well, or just those?

 

[SolusCado]

What I have noticed Solus is that once you are in a place that you have no answer you make comments to belittle others in an attempt to deflect.

You are doing it more and more. It's no suprise at this point that you have caved. Unable to answer such questions yourself you simply say that others don't understand you. You don't know anymore of gods will than I or anyone else.

Your whole idea/theory is a contradiction in itself, to atheists and theists alike.

It's an attempt to cover all bases with nothing but speculation, and as CC said, to hide your god. Keep him out of reach so that nothing sticks to him.

Why is that ?

I am not so childish to re-engage just to prove a point to you. I have provided my reasons for not continuing; if you would like to reform your position and provide some coherent points that don't require me to constantly repeat myself I will happily answer them.

 

[SolusCado]

Yet he wrote that in the NT, so you must doubt its validity. What about after deuteronomy it also says its complete.

As I said before, I don't doubt the validity of the NT simply because I don't trust in its infallibility. It just means that I am open to recognizing mistakes in it, if and/or when they exist.

Because you are rationalizing there being a "chosen race" with absolutely no data or evidence. Yes I am aware people are different, however so is a car and an airplane that doesn't mean I'm going to rationalize my faith by stating maybe a car can fly too and we don't know it. Also you say "dilution" when genes are not diluted they are mixed and I believe what the end result of that mixing is a superior human with the best genes sticking around for survival and environment. The mere fact you believe a bloodline has to stay "intact" in order to be somehow better than one that isn't suggests some very very troubling rationality going on. I beg you to reconsider your position and the evidence with a new perspective.

Quit using terms like "better" and "superior". I haven't done so, and don't appreciate you attempting to put words in my mouth like that. You are welcome to quote me, but let's keep this conversation honest. What I DID suggest was that there may have been a genetic aberration that made communicating with God possible. That gene can easily be bred out if it is a recessive gene, and if not protected to a certain point can be lost forever.

Some of them do seem silly, but they don't hurt anyone. I actually used to make fun of confession but once I tried it out just for the new experience and I was actually shocked at how helpful having a sworn to secrecy confidant could be. The 2,000 year old tradition seems to make the notion that you can talk to a priest about ANYTHING and be assured everyone in town isn't going to know very probable, so I really didn't doubt being able to discuss things he may find offensive yet still not worry about what other people would think. I was shocked at how tolerant that priest was really, changed my opinion of the people had I been at a baptist fundamental church I would have probably been held down and doused with holy water or something haha.

I'm not saying that they are all bad, or hurt people. But when religious institutions start calling things Christian that aren't, they damage the image of Christianity. THAT is my problem with Catholicism.

And because lori didn't defend your faith you let that stand? If I was a card carrying baptist or not agnostic I would have jumped all over that.. and please when you respond do it without "interpreting" or looking up alternate or questionable definitions of words. That isn't helpful it just states maybe by 1/1000 odds the bible is misunderstood and maybe it isn't.

After responding to it just now, I realize that very little of it actually had anything to do with my position (since you largely just complained about stuff in the NT, which I never claimed to be infallible).

Only there is no science to genes that allow you to talk to God.

Actually, that isn't true at all. There have been recent discoveries and experiments that suggest there is a part of the brain that is responsible for our perception of God, and it is a construct that not everyone has. It hasn't been traced to a specific gene, but how much of our biologies are unique and NOT traceable to a specific gene.

I tell you what I believe is more likely.

If there is a God that God is timeless, that God would have to be seperated from our dimension and yet be able to manipulate it or enter and exit it.. or maybe in the least have programmed it. Intelligence leads to an overall "goodness" or lack of sin you might say, or lack of doing bad or harmful things and wanting to do good things and share knowledge. If there is a creator he may be exactly like us in all but intelligence, and maybe our purpose is to evolve to that level and thus be able to I dunno repopulate worlds or keep the guy company. Maybe just maybe I could see us for example in millions of years trying to create intelligent life to populate the universe or even make universes filled with life and good things.

So eventually I see our religions have to evolve, progress and social justice must be improved constantly and that means our ethics also must be improved and refined. We have to cross the gap between cultures somehow.

And I think everyone should be aware that anyone that would punish someone for simply living in a different environment is not all knowing.

Time to grow up and write some more books on theology really as a species.

I agree with everything you just said.

Anyway God may exist but as the bible has the religion that is not an all knowing God. We have evolved and grown enough to know some of those ways are not good anymore or beneficial to our survival or "preservation".

What makes you suggest that the Bible's God is not all-knowing?

Maybe at one time it may have been beneficial for a culture to remain segregated from things that would damage humanity as a whole.. that time however is past.

I agree, and I believe that time had passed with the coming of Christ. Thus the relevance of the timing of his coming.

 

[jpappl]

I am not so childish to re-engage just to prove a point to you. I have provided my reasons for not continuing; if you would like to reform your position and provide some coherent points that don't require me to constantly repeat myself I will happily answer them.

Your reasons for not continuing is because you don't have a coherent answer to why your god condones slavery.

You don't have a lot of answers Solus and I wouldn't care if you stuck to speculation. But when you start answering questions with pointed comments towards others made to cover for your own inabilities I have issue with that.

My position is solid and needs no speculation. In fact the only speculation that I have provided at all is that there may be a god. I have no evidence of one at all so that is pure speculation. But I will concede that I can not prove there is not one.

You have nothing by speculation, so for you to speak of coherent points is laughable. Your points are all based on speculation and interpretations of interpretations.

So I will agree to end the discussion if you are done dealing with me. It appears that is the case. I also see that you wanted nothing to do with CC for the same reason.

It's too bad. You said you were writing a book. I was actually trying to help by raising questions that you may not have asked yourself.

In this way you can cover those beforehand. But anyway, good luck with the book.

 

[SolusCado]

Your reasons for not continuing is because you don't have a coherent answer to why your god condones slavery.

No, you have yet to explain how allows = condones.

You don't have a lot of answers Solus and I wouldn't care if you stuck to speculation. But when you start answering questions with pointed comments towards others made to cover for your own inabilities I have issue with that.

Like the way you still haven't explained how allows = condones?

My position is solid and needs no speculation. In fact the only speculation that I have provided at all is that there may be a god. I have no evidence of one at all so that is pure speculation. But I will concede that I can not prove there is not one.

Like how allows = condones?

So I will agree to end the discussion if you are done dealing with me. It appears that is the case. I also see that you wanted nothing to do with CC for the same reason.

Yes, when people fall into a rut I tire of dealing with them.

It's too bad. You said you were writing a book. I was actually trying to help by raising questions that you may not have asked yourself.

And yet all you would do is continue to repeat statements for which you had no justification.

In this way you can cover those beforehand. But anyway, good luck with the book.

Thank you.

 

[spidergoat]

Allowing and condoning is practically the same thing. Slavery is a good issue that points out how the Bible cannot be a guide to morality. If God allows/ condones slavery, then he isn't a just God, he allows evil, so he isn't worthy of worship. If he doesn't, then the Bible cannot be trusted to be His word, and that undermines any written scripture pretending to be divinely inspired.

 

[SolusCado]

Allowing and condoning is practically the same thing. Slavery is a good issue that points out how the Bible cannot be a guide to morality. If God allows/ condones slavery, then he isn't a just God, he allows evil, so he isn't worthy of worship. If he doesn't, then the Bible cannot be trusted to be His word, and that undermines any written scripture pretending to be divinely inspired.

No, they aren't the same thing. But in any case, no one has yet justified their position of calling slavery evil in the first place. WE recognize it to be wrong, but there was a time when we recognized women walking in the streets by themselves as wrong also. I am not going to judge an omnipotent God based on the current cultural trends of my country.

And in any case, even if it IS evil, as I said before - perhaps that was something mankind needed to figure out on its own. I am not going to judge the divine revelations of men based on what I (or any of you) think SHOULD have been a revelation at some other point in time. I mean, if you are going to take that position, why not complain that God didn't just do everything all at once? Why did we have to wait several thousand years for Christ's crucifixion in the first place? The points you are all trying to make are absolutely MEANINGLESS because they all assume that you know what God should do and should have done, and that is beyond arrogant, not to mention completely baseless.

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Your reasons for not continuing is because you don't have a coherent answer to why your god condones slavery. ”

No, you have yet to explain how allows = condones.

Yes I have, here: from post 821

Hmm - see above. Like many things in this world, I see slavery as a natural component. God allows nature to take its course. However DON'T conflate condone with allow. I see nothing scripturally to suggest he condones it, and unless you can provide otherwise, don't jump into such assumptions. ”

He is an omnipotent being. Hello. He could have stopped slavery right from the get go. By allowing it he is condoning it because he has the ability to stop it or at least tell us to stop it. He didnt.
Bold is mine.

Like the way you still haven't explained how allows = condones?

Do you really think semantics gamesmanship is making a point.

Does god call slavery a sin, or abomination or in anyway says that we should not allow it. NO.

I am not the believer, this is something that you need to ask yourself. I don't care what word you want to use to make it go down easier.

Why wouldn't an all knowing, omnipotent god know what we know now just a few thousand years later. That slavery is an abomination.

Either you have to admit that slavery is ok per the OT, or we have grown past your god or the god is not all knowing or that they really didn't interact with god and made it all up. Or maybe all of the above.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
So I will agree to end the discussion if you are done dealing with me. It appears that is the case. I also see that you wanted nothing to do with CC for the same reason. ”

Yes, when people fall into a rut I tire of dealing with them.

You mean when people keep asking you a question which you don't have a good answer to it affects the image of your position.

Instead of saying. I don't know why god would not say anything about slavery being an abomination and would allow for it and thus condone it in the OT. And then question your belief.

You try to defend it with all sorts of nonsense including semantics games.

He is allowing, consenting, letting them, giving them approval for, condoning slavery. Use whatever words you want to describe it. Semantics games won't remove it from the OT.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
It's too bad. You said you were writing a book. I was actually trying to help by raising questions that you may not have asked yourself. ”

And yet all you would do is continue to repeat statements for which you had no justification.

Not so. Show me where I don't justify my positions. Coming from a position of pure speculation, you shouldn't be talking about justification.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
In this way you can cover those beforehand. But anyway, good luck with the book. ”

Thank you.

You're welcome and I am being geniune.

I said before, many times that I am not trying to get you to not believe in a god. But to question the god that you are believing in.

 

[jpappl]

No, they aren't the same thing. But in any case, no one has yet justified their position of calling slavery evil in the first place. WE recognize it to be wrong, but there was a time when we recognized women walking in the streets by themselves as wrong also. I am not going to judge an omnipotent God based on the current cultural trends of my country.

And in any case, even if it IS evil, as I said before - perhaps that was something mankind needed to figure out on its own. I am not going to judge the divine revelations of men based on what I (or any of you) think SHOULD have been a revelation at some other point in time. I mean, if you are going to take that position, why not complain that God didn't just do everything all at once? Why did we have to wait several thousand years for Christ's crucifixion in the first place? The points you are all trying to make are absolutely MEANINGLESS because they all assume that you know what God should do and should have done, and that is beyond arrogant, not to mention completely baseless.

Wow. Ok so we should not question the bible.

And oh, by the way that is exactly what you are apparently doing. Not questioning it. Just reading it to interpret it to fit your theory.

How are we being arrogant in asking these questions Solus ?

I am not claiming to know god or what he should have done. I am questioning what is written in the texts of the bible which apparently were inspired by god.

Are you suggesting that is off limits ?

 

[spidergoat]

No, they aren't the same thing. But in any case, no one has yet justified their position of calling slavery evil in the first place. WE recognize it to be wrong, but there was a time when we recognized women walking in the streets by themselves as wrong also. I am not going to judge an omnipotent God based on the current cultural trends of my country.

And in any case, even if it IS evil, as I said before - perhaps that was something mankind needed to figure out on its own. I am not going to judge the divine revelations of men based on what I (or any of you) think SHOULD have been a revelation at some other point in time. I mean, if you are going to take that position, why not complain that God didn't just do everything all at once? Why did we have to wait several thousand years for Christ's crucifixion in the first place? The points you are all trying to make are absolutely MEANINGLESS because they all assume that you know what God should do and should have done, and that is beyond arrogant, not to mention completely baseless.

Indeed, it should have happened all at once. But anyway, yes, slavery was a cultural value in biblical times, but don't we know now that it's wrong? Why is the morality outlined in the bible such an obvious product of the times? Shouldn't God transcend such things? I maintain that the bible doesn't reveal anything that people didn't already know at the time, so why is it divine? I find it troublesome that religious people would practice their religion like this: revelation is a matter of interpretation, but that revelation also tells people that it is a matter of life and death to get it right. So all sorts of people are going around believing and acting on the notion that eternal torture awaits those that do not interpret God's will the same way they do. And that will is of such a nature and origin that it precludes rational belief. I don't find anything divine about it.

 

[gmilam]

Obviously, huh? I had no idea we had someone who actually knew the mind of God, and the authors of the NT so well. Are there other minds you can read as well, or just those?

I never could read minds... ask my ex-wife. But, luckily I don't need to. The words are there plain as day. No double speak, no interpretation needed.

 

[jpappl]

But anyway, yes, slavery was a cultural value in biblical times, but don't we know now that it's wrong? Why is the morality outlined in the bible such an obvious product of the times? Shouldn't God transcend such things? I maintain that the bible doesn't reveal anything that people didn't already know at the time, so why is it divine?

This is exactly what I am trying to get Solus to recognize. That god should have known and revealed such.

He appears to be unwilling to ask himself that question or he doesn't understand what is being asked.

He is intelligent so I go with the former.

 

[birch]

No, they aren't the same thing. But in any case, no one has yet justified their position of calling slavery evil in the first place. WE recognize it to be wrong, but there was a time when we recognized women walking in the streets by themselves as wrong also. I am not going to judge an omnipotent God based on the current cultural trends of my country.

And in any case, even if it IS evil, as I said before - perhaps that was something mankind needed to figure out on its own. I am not going to judge the divine revelations of men based on what I (or any of you) think SHOULD have been a revelation at some other point in time. I mean, if you are going to take that position, why not complain that God didn't just do everything all at once? Why did we have to wait several thousand years for Christ's crucifixion in the first place? The points you are all trying to make are absolutely MEANINGLESS because they all assume that you know what God should do and should have done, and that is beyond arrogant, not to mention completely baseless.

actually, this post is baseless. it's because we are talking about laws and morality from god. that is what the bible represents as religion, that it is a word of god as claimed. you are trying to twist this to allow for human error or change but still push the idea that the bible is the word of god. it's lunatic logic. it's like saying that if i write that murder or slavery is okay in the past, it's was god's will and god's law even though i change my mind later and think it's evil and not of god later. and don't even try to use the 'allow' vs condone argument. total bs.

by you interpreting that as a revelation of humans along with the claim that everything is god's word is directly not only contradictory but hypocritical to your original stance. this is admitting that god is faulty or god needs to evolve right along with the rest of us OR that humans are limited and faulty in interpreting or even knowing what god stands for or values. this revelation would only be revealed according to the abilities, perception or development of the person. this would mean that the old or the new testament may not be perfect or true word of god or some is/isn't but you state the old testament is and the new testament isn't. what's ironic is you keep saying that others are being arrogant but it's truly arrogant to not consider that what is written in the bible, both old and new testament, could be faulty and not even all or from or even representative of god. this claim that it is, is truly arrogant.

i think you are still playing coy and not coming right out and say what you really stand for. possibly that you don't think slavery is wrong among other biblical issues and that may not go well over with gaining credibility or others to view religion or god positively.

 

[dhcracker]

Actually, Deut 4 sounds to me like it is saying that when God says something, don't change it. If he tells you x=y, don't provide your own commentary. It does not say that he has finished talking to people. The verse in Revelations clearly applies to the Revelations themselves, nothing else.

Clearly? I hear it preached to apply to the bible all the time. Also there you start already, what part of the words I and the lord do you not understand? That is moses saying only he writes gods laws, nobody else adds to it. Hence leviticus is dead lol.

You're going to have to provide specific examples of this, which you have not yet done.

Did you miss the rest of the post? Perhaps you wish for more ideaology issues, well let's see how you respond to this correction before I go doing any more research on your behalf.

This is applying the same inerrancy of scripture to translations and interpretations, of which no claim is ever made. Why do you get to decide that only one meaning is allowed?

I simply quote the scripture, I apply no meaning to it you do that. I think people that can read know what the scripture says without re-translating it.

I have noted before that in other areas of the OT, where lineages are provided like this, I believe the intent is to refer to family trees, not inviduals. IOW, Joseph was of the tree of Heli. His father Jacob would also have been of the tree of Heli.

You are just line by line picking, you are not taking all this evidence on its own weight. You think if you can find any little issue with every single piece of data its legit? Problem is the NT was written after 100 AD, they do not use the word "father" and "tree" interchangably. Further evidence later in this post you miss entirely... btw the "tree" of Jesus is the house of David nobody else under david would be elevated to that position.

There are many schools of thought on this, but one that makes sense to me is that Christ is saying that he (like the rest of us) is part of God. We are all sons of God. God is a part of each and every one of us (kind of like the Force in Star Wars). However, Christ also acknowledges that he ISN'T "The Father", and that his Father is greater.

Thats a school that isn't in session very long as far as thought goes. A God is supremely intelligent, man is not. If you say you are equal to God you cannot make yourself equal to humanity. We are not sons of God we are sons of our fathers.. I think as the generations go back we get dumber not more intelligent.

I'd have to look into the lineage stuff, but I have certainly come across names in the past that actually have the same meaning, even though they look different to us. They are in fact the same names.

Oh? Give us some biblical examples where a characters name is replaced by its meaning. You can't just willy nilly make stuff up as u go.

Not sure what you are getting at with this verse.



Or this one.

How about you read them side by side? As soon as you think you have figured out why those two verses agree with each other I promise you I will show you why you cannot trust your bible at all. This is a very very very bad contradiction and also proof you can't trust either the OT or the NT as legit documents.

I am not personally familiar with these verses, but from what I recall, Judas not only hung himself but also cut open his stomach so that his "bowels gushed out".

So you just try to recall and don't make use of google? What kind of debate is this one where you are your own source material? You think you're ad-hoc attempts at explanation are doing anything other than showing your a waste of my time?

These were all perspectives of different people, who no doubt heard different things. These were NOT inspirations from God, but rather direct testaments of their experiences.

No they are not, matthew, mark, luke, and john were not witnesses to the event nor did they interview any witnesses. This is proof of the story changing every time its told, imagine before it was written down how bad it got changed!

See my comment above re: lineages.

So you think that Jacob father of Jesus could be in Helis famil tree even though Jacob lineage HAS NO HELI IN IT, nor does helis have a jacob... forget the fact that this is the TREE OF DAVID OR HOUSE OF DAVID to begin with. Why source an unknown when you could source the king?

So are you suggesting that because some of the testaments didn't explicitly note that the cock crowed twince then that means it must have only crowed once? Seems like a pretty flimsy position to me.

What is flimsy at this point is your ability to use any logic or reason to justify your faith, you use faith as reason and evidence. I say yes its different versions I take the author at his own words, I suspect the later made the cock crow more times o get rid of the possibility it was coincidence.

I don't know - count them... Why are you bringing that up?

You can't count yourself? Matthew has a longer sermon, more stuff in it.. either one is making stuff up or one is leaving stuff out.

Yes, once we are "born-again" we do not sin, but that doesn't mean we never did. And remember, "to sin" means simply to fall short of perfection. Once "born again" we are completed into perfection through Christ. Whether we "commit sins" or not is irrelevant; we are still made perfect through Christ.

Thats not what Jesus says about judgment day buddy. You are judged by your works as all are, Jesus doesn't say you get to bypass your actions. But the bigger issue is how you can possibly believe this and later on down dismiss your own belief by dismissing the book it is written in....

No, it's not. The resurrection has little to do with my faith.

I can't see any real evidence that has anything to do with your faith either.

I never said the NT WAS inspired by God.

Oh yes only that it tells you how to get to heaven and be made perfect.

More comments on the NT, to which I refer back to my previous statement.

Your just getting lazy here man, I refer you back to your own statements as well. You can't have it both ways, either you believe in Jesus or you don't.

I'm afraid I've gotten tired of and don't have time to read through all these comments to justify a point that I have never even made.

Maybe if you read a little better you would see the relevance this has to your being born again as fiction or not.

Umm, the state of the NT bothers me quite a bit, which is why I also read the Gnostic Gospels and other teachings of the early church fathers.

I suggest also reading history books, science, and also just living and learning. The early church was the most crooked of all.

 

[dhcracker]

As I said before, I don't doubt the validity of the NT simply because I don't trust in its infallibility. It just means that I am open to recognizing mistakes in it, if and/or when they exist.

No you are not, I just showed you a touch of the mistakes and errors that you yourself could find if you were "open to recognizing mistakes", use google type biblical contradictions and see how open you are after reading the first and second hit.

Quit using terms like "better" and "superior". I haven't done so, and don't appreciate you attempting to put words in my mouth like that. You are welcome to quote me, but let's keep this conversation honest. What I DID suggest was that there may have been a genetic aberration that made communicating with God possible. That gene can easily be bred out if it is a recessive gene, and if not protected to a certain point can be lost forever.

I quoted no such terms from you, however beleiving something is more suited to a purpose or chosen for a purpose is in fact the same as using those terms. When your thought process is stripped to its most basic element you don't like it? Your logic cites a study of sensing God or sensing something, not communication. And the experiment actually shows that we probably made the god concept up not that he put genes in only some of us to talk to. Also your study isn't just of jews, so your logic is shot all to pieces when trying to use real data. You only twist the data to conform to your own faith, not use the data to shape your beliefs...

I'm not saying that they are all bad, or hurt people. But when religious institutions start calling things Christian that aren't, they damage the image of Christianity. THAT is my problem with Catholicism.

Again me and you don't get to define a religion, the people in it do. And me and you don't have a right to force our definition on other people we can only try to reason them and educate them.

After responding to it just now, I realize that very little of it actually had anything to do with my position (since you largely just complained about stuff in the NT, which I never claimed to be infallible).

Who wrote the OT you read? Christians did... think about that for a minute.

Actually, that isn't true at all. There have been recent discoveries and experiments that suggest there is a part of the brain that is responsible for our perception of God, and it is a construct that not everyone has. It hasn't been traced to a specific gene, but how much of our biologies are unique and NOT traceable to a specific gene.

nor has it been shown to be recessive, nor is it present in only jews or part jews, nor is it present in people who are highly intelligent and don't need a perception of God, and also you say "communication" not perception. The experiment tells us that God was something we associate with the unknown and it actually hints that hes made up not that anyone can talk to him. Maybe we can talk to our fears and percieved prescences but they won't talk back to us.

What makes you suggest that the Bible's God is not all-knowing?

because all knowing would mean tolerant behaviour, smart people don't exterminate other races for land. A just and all knowing God wouldn't pick one race of people for favortism. The bibles God is a God made up to subjugate a race of people and make them commit genocide and steal land.. I bet if there is a God he is pretty angry at whoever this Moses guy is.

I agree, and I believe that time had passed with the coming of Christ. Thus the relevance of the timing of his coming.

Why didn't he come later when we could properly record things again?? Why would he come at a time when he knew christianity would be hijacked??

Wow man you are all over the place I don't know if anything you are telling me is real or if you are simply in denial at this point lol.

 

[Kernl Sandrs]

The other gods.

lawl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

 

[phlogistician]

lawl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

'What if you're wrong', ...

Ah, 'Pascal's Wager' is alive and well amongst those that think it's a one horse race still I see.

Using another horse analogy, why are Christians often so blinkered to this?