David,
Firstly let me apologise for an equally lengthy post
In the quote it mentions “all” of His plagues; the bubonic plague was not one of the plagues mentioned.
No disrespect meant at all, but this comes across as being mildly pedantic. You are seemingly claiming that these 10 plagues alone encompass the complete knowledge and power of god, and anything other than that is a purely natural event, or perhaps the action of someone elses god. However, in either case it doesn't really take away too much from what I have been trying to reach.
Let me concur with your claim for a moment, and consider that 'all' of god's plagues are those shown in Exodus.
"In 1999 an environmental catastrophe happened in the town of New Burn, North Carolina. The residents woke up to find the waters of their river - the Neuse - had turned red. More than a billion fish died."
As you can see, for the sake of your claims, I have moved away from the bubonic plague and directly to one of god's plagues as featured in Exodus. Modern day science would tell us this was a result of pfisteria. Of course it is possible that god caused this due to a big bunch of sinners living in North Carolina, but isn't it more probable that ancient people merely could not diagnose something that is entirely natural, and as a consequence passed the event onto a powerful being?
Once again I would like to ask if you think ancient people could diagnose pfisteria?
Do you acknowledge the possibility that the plagues have a completely natural explanation that these ancient people simply could not comprehend, and that they supplied the only answer that would suffice for them?
This indicates that leprosy was not from God, but it is open to your own interpretation.
Might I ask where it came from then? Did it come into existence naturally? Did a different god create it?
How would those who believe god created everything reconcile your statement that leprosy was not from god?
If god did create it, is it not safe to say that he created it to disfigure and kill mankind? Is not it's entire 'purpose' in life to cause absolute pain and misery to humans? And then if god is the creator of all things, it can only be accurate to state that he created these things in order to cause absolute pain and misery to humans. He didn't even stop there apparently.. Not only are there an astounding abundance of 'man-killers', but also and abundance of 'animal-killers'. For the human HIV there is the ape SIV etc etc.. This negates the idea that we are inflicted with these diseases due to sin, unless you are to conclude that animals also commit sin, and are also punished by god for those sins.
Now don't get me wrong, I personally agree with you, considering I do not believe in a god. However, this is based as an 'if'. If there is a god and he created everything, then he created 'human-killers', and for no other purpose than to kill humans. Many would conclude that they have been created due to humanities sins, but then we need to look at the questions I have raised.
If God had caused leprosy He would have warned them that He was going to do it as His past record showed.
Did he warn everyone before drowning them?
The verse tells me God was advising the Israelites on how to deal with this plague.
Ah... So I take it from this sentence that you're actually stating that these ancient people had no medical knowledge, or very limited medical knowledge? As a result, do you think they would have been able to diagnose pfisteria?
If God had inflicted Leprosy in the days that Jesus walked the earth, then why did Jesus cure these people? It would go directly against what God intended for these sufferers if you were to conclude that leprosy was from God. Can you see the flaw in the logic here?
Perhaps I could if there wasn't a thorn sticking in the side of this issue. Not just a little thorn, but a massive, sharp as a needle kind of thorn. I shall present this thorn now:
Exodus 4:11 The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD ?
So, you are hereby stating that jesus was going directly against what god intended for these people by curing the deaf and blind.
What's amusing to me, is how the NT claims demons cause people to be blind, whereas in the OT god happily accepts responsibility for it. Jesus then goes about undoing god's work and blaming it on the devil.
I spoke a long time ago here about how jesus did everything in the opposite manner to how the OT god did things, and that the NT itself completely went against the OT. One such example:
In the Old Testament terminology angels are called sons of god while men are called servants of God. In the New Testament this is reversed. Angels are the servants and christians are the sons of god.
I was going to write a complete analysis of this, but unfortunately didn't get round to it. I will pick up again from where I left off.
This is two of the reasons why I believe there is a difference between plagues from God and natural plagues that occur due to the state of the earth and everything in it.
So these 'natural plagues' came into existence by themselves?
It’s sufficient because it explains everything that is needed to get an understanding of God and where we’re ultimately going.
But obviously there is a flaw somewhere, be that with humanity or with the bible. A massive portion of humanity are not christian, and have no way of discerning reality from fiction with the oh-so-many other religious texts on the planet. Humans are far from perfect, and any being that desires man to get close to him can easily take some further steps to ensure it.
I have already suggested a possible NNT. This would prevent people getting mislead by false prophets such as David Koresh etc, and would also bring about a set of rules and way of living that is more relevant to today's society. I mean c'mon, all the stoning people to death, sacrificing cows etc is old forgotten god commands, and the more modern day commands such as a woman not being allowed to speak in church, need to be revised to fit our times. As no man can add to or change the bible without having all the plagues sent upon him, it would be pertinent to state that only god can do it, and I would merely suggest that perhaps it give it some consideration. It's not like it would hurt.
I find it somewhat strange that you would use the term "sufficient" when speaking of god's word. It most certainly is far from perfect, and that's what one would expect from the book of god. I'm sure it is 'sufficient' for some, but for the majority it clearly isn't. An NNT would certainly aid god aswell, in his desire to have humans get closer to him.
if the Bible doesn’t contain enough answers as regarding this then what else is needed exactly?
You could ask that question to two thirds of humanity. Clearly something is going wrong somewhere. As I have stated above, perhaps an NNT is the best all round solution.
It’s amazing how quickly you atheists blame a non existent God (in your eyes) for bad things, yet congratulate yourselves for the good things in life.
While I could say it's amazing how you religious folk blame all the bad things on the rest of us humans, yet congratulate a non existant god, (in my eyes) for all the good in life, and thus try so hard to point man as being some worthless reject, I wont.
Instead I will just reflect that I, (and 'us atheists'), do not believe in a god, and as a result do not blame it for anything. What you need to understand however is that
you do believe there is a god, and debating arguments must generally be used as an "If" in order to debate fully. I hope you understand that.
God did show himself at the beginning but this didn’t stop us from becoming pagans and worshipping statues, obviously this didn’t have any lasting affect. He also showed up throughout the Bible.
And I often comment about this 2000 year dissapearance. Is itperhaps because man has generally progressed? Is it possible that as mans understanding progresses, that god dwindles further into the void, as I suggested earlier?
It was the majority of my point. You see, several hundred years later, man are blaming plagues on rats, germs, and other such things. We now call rivers of blood pfisteria, not god's hand. These people had no way of diagnosing or understanding why and how a river would turn red like blood, and as a consequence, gave the only answer they as a people could comprehend. We have moved beyond that, and god has become completely irrelevant to life, other than a safe passage to a better world for scared and lonely humans.
If you can try and understand the scripture(the one you said is false) regarding that revelations is the last book of the Bible, and everything else is not from God then you can conclude that if AIDS or Cancer is not in the book, it is not from God. This is what I believe, but I could be wrong.
There would be no reason or justification for AIDS to be written in the bible. These people knew nothing of it, nor did it exist. The best god could manage was to explain that people with red spots had leprosy and to kick them out of camp. He didn't explain the cure for leprosy, (which we don't even have now), or even how to hold it at bay, (which we do have now). The best advice god could give was "send them away", and while it is good advice in that respect, it shows but a simple medical knowledge of people, not divine beings.
The people could not treat it, but they recognised the symptoms and summarily booted people out of camp because of it. HIV and cancer are far far more complex to understand than leprosy. What I mean by this, is that leprosy is openly apparent, whereas the others are not. These people didn't have x-rays or the ability to check for and diagnose illness and disease.
When God has unleashed a plague in the past, it has been for a purpose. I see no purpose in the bubonic plague or AIDS or cancer to be honest.
Oh come now. They kill sinners, just like the ten plagues did. Look at the people during the time of the bubonic plague:
Whores, queers, people who thought incest was a good thing, witches, and other such things that we all know god finds abhorrent. You must have read the scripture?
I think you just need to try and understand that there is a difference between God’s plagues and natural ones
Alas I did not realise you were a proponent of evolution and disease coming into existence without the express desire on the part of god. What do you mean by 'natural'?
Disease exists because of the fall, as I explained in an earlier post. I cannot explain it from my point of view any better. God can cure these things you know…
He can? So can the local hospital.
However, the hospital did not create them or make their entire purpose in life the annihilation of man.
An example of a natural disease that has existed for some time, I don’t disagree that disease isn’t a recent thing. My biblical quote above talks about leprosy.
So, I can only conclude here that you believe that there are things that have not been created by god, but have 'arrived' by some natural means?
Well I believe God still works through man, but I’m biased I suppose.
This sentence shows the very point of the Mark Twain essay.
Man is capable of so much, hmmm, I would agree if I never watched the news or read any history. You can’t detach a man from his bad deeds as this would not make them a human being, would you agree?
Certainly. However, people view things differently, and if I may, I would like to provide a recent example:
About an hour ago, my wife and I went up the road to buy a curry. We stopped at the bank machine and noticed that the card slot was different, (I use the bank every day of the week). I gave it a mild tug and the whole panel ripped off. Some foreign dude came up, snatched the panel and ran off. In short, it was one of those scam bank things that have been in the news a lot. My wife was concerned, and spoke about how we could have been stabbed, etc. I on the other hand showed my delight that we hadn't been stabbed.
Some people choose the negativity in life, whereas some, (like myself), prefer to focus on the good aspects. While I will not deny man can be evil, I notice all the good that man can accomplish. You on the other hand seem intent on noticing the evil while ignoring, or sweeping aside the good that can come from man.
Instead of thanking the man for saving your life, you'd undoubtedly thank the sky instead, and completely lower the value of man to nothing. You make us all valueless, worthless, and meaningless. For all the worth you give to man, we might aswell be automatons, running this simulation for the amusement of god. Personally I find that absolutely sickening, dare I say abhorrent?
Where is the contradiction?
There seems little point in me telling you. That is something you must work out for yourself.
Who said I would try so hard to stay away from it?
Fighting to survive is fighting to not die, which is fighting to keep heaven and the meeting with god that much further away.
Usually when someone close dies then basically you’re left here without them which is hard for any human being no matter how strong their faith is.
Away from? Absolutely not. They're now with god who the majority of christians are supposedly in contact with, and you should seemingly be more happy that your loved one has now gone to the perfect place, and is perfectly happy. While you are temporarily distanced, (in the flesh - which is meaningless), their spirit is happy and you'll soon be joined together forever.
I personally pray for them and live in hope that one day we will be united. So it’s similar to the way you would react I guess
No way near similar.
but we keep the hope part. What is wrong with that?
It's weak.
Really, what works did Koresh do in the book world (which is the context that this answer falls under)?
Never read his texts? He wrote about the seven seals, how to understand them yada yada yada. As you've not got round to reading his texts, perhaps we should just mention Joseph whassisname, (the mormon guy).
Matthew 7
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
I know the passage, and I have no quarms with it, but it is irrelevant to what I'm saying.
"If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book"
It doesn't say "If any real prophet", it says "If any man", which would undoubtedly include David Koresh. He added to it, as did that Joseph guy - and yet none received any of god's small collection of plagues.
Actually there is evidence that brain surgery was performed, but I do not have it at hand at the moment so you can trust what you wrote above or look into yourself.
Could they diagnose pfisteria? Apparently they couldn't even figure out what to do with a leper without the help from god, so it is very doubtful.
So you have concluded that the people who built the pyramids knew nothing of nature because if they did the Bible stories could actually be authentic.
I haven't concluded anything. I am stating that just because they could build pyramids, does it mean they could diagnose a natural disease such as pfisteria?
Thank you.
I just think they could tell if something strange regarding the God of the Bible was going on or not. I don’t think these people would have been easily spooked.
No? everyone would be spooked if a river turned red like blood, especially people that could not analyze it and diagnose an accurate answer. And who are you referring to when you say regarding the god of the bible? Are you talking about those who you mentioned earlier as for not paying any attention to god even though he was visible and present? The pagan worshippers? Who?
And bare in mind that the plagues came and gone when Moses’ said they would.
According to who? Oopsie, we have a problem.. According to most, Moses wrote this part of the bible. So what we would conclude is that Moses said that the plagues started and stopped when Moses said so.
At least if someone else wrote it we'd have a witness, but with all your knowledge of mankind, you should know how presumptuous it is to trust a man who says that something is true because he says so.
Maybe they were thinking the same way as you, that these plagues were purely coincidental, until the penny dropped.
The penny dropped instantly. The Pharoah said "cool, they can go", but alas, god wanted to show his abilities so he hardened the pahroahs heart.
But then on the other hand.. Did the penny ever drop? Even after all ten plagues, Pharoah went out to get them all. god then drowned the buggers, (which he is somewhat infamous for), and that's the end of that chapter.
If we take this approach, it would be pertinent to state that the penny never fell, hell it never even left the wallet.
Maybe I should have just responded to this instead of including all the other stuff. Tell me, what is the issue?
To see whether these people could have diagnosed natural diseases, and if not, how one can conclude that their conclusions are valid. None of that dares state that there is not or cannot be some entity in space that blipped the world into existence, but that these people have mistaken a natural occurence as being actioned by that possible space being.
There could be a space being that we would give the label 'god' that merely blipped existence into being and then vanished in a puff of smoke. It need not be a 'he', it need not demand worship, and it need not care about the jews, (or anyone else for that matter).
Ok, so why do you still blame Him for bad things that happen (Don’t tell me you never have)?
It doesn't exist. I have nothing to blame on it's non existence, and not only because it doesn't exist, but because things are not that bad. As I explained earlier, I prefer to "look on the bright side" of things.
Have you EVER given thanks to God for anything?
It doesn't exist, but regardless to that, what would I be thanking it for?
Yes, civilisation has advanced. Tell me why don’t car manufacturers just build cars that do 70 miles per hour?
Are you claiming that there was no morality before jesus?
No he didn’t add to those words, as my Bible and every other Bible does not contain the Koresh stuff.
Fine, fine.. what about the translators and bible publishers that add to it by putting stuff in brackets, change words, (as can be seen in the many differing translations), and so on. Any plagues there?
You do seem to like the 100% literal approach, and being 100% literal, these people
did add to it.
What do you mean by “the absolute truth”?
A belief that the bible is completely literal. There are people out there that do.
Ok. So are you saying that there’s no such thing as free will?
Pretty much, yes - but not in the exact manner someone would percieve the whole "free will" context.
We do have the ability to choose, but the choices we make would be directly because of a billion external influences: How we were raised, the things we experience, etc etc.
I would suggest reading Mark Twain's "What is man". I can provide a link if you're interested.
Becoming an atheist is a choice.
Sure, determined by many factors. I didn't openly choose to be an atheist. I was led there by the experiences in my life.
Good story. But you’re comparing humans to animals which I don’t go along with, but I understand your position. We humans have the power to make intelligent decisions, intelligent decisions that are way above anything the animal kingdom can comprehend.
I don't deny man's ability to make decisions, nor do I deny an ants ability to make a decision about whether to go left or right. However, in both cases those decisions are only made due to external influences. While the ant's influences might be more readily simplistic, such as a smell - man's influences are easily seen when you look for them. Why do fat people "choose" to go to weight loss clinics, whereas skinny people wont? Is it really just simple choice, or an external influence?
So the saying “A leopard never changes its spots”, is applicable to everyone in your opinion?
Yes and no. Yes people never change what they are, but those that 'choose' to try and change what they think they are, only do so because external influences have made them the kind of person that would try to change what they are.
I think you should read some testimonies regarding how the belief in Jesus Christ has changed people as a matter of fact, in reality we’re talking.
Would that not be the ultimate of "external influences"?
It’s more complicated then that.
To you perhaps, but not to the person I spoke to a while back, that stated that was the very reason he considered bigfoot or whatever as fiction and god as fact.
Let’s look at a current day example. Billy Graham. He has brought millions to Christ yet the least in Heaven will be greater then he. That’s altruism.
There's a hierarchy in heaven? There will be posh cities and local slums? Considering the least would be greatest, wouldn't that put the atheist at the top of the ladder?
But I think they understood the difference between a common cold and lightening and fire coming down from the skies on the command of a man.
They had the scientific knowledge to know what lightning and shooting stars were?
Why are there billions of stars for example?
Because god made them to light our tiny little planet? Because god made them to allow the angels to play billiards?
You tell me, what are they there for? What are the billions upon billions upon billions of stars and planets devoid of any life there for?
After all, they're only going to be snuffed out eventually, (along with us), as seen in Ezekiel, Joel, Matthew etc etc. Mark even says that they're going to fall from the sky, as does revelations. It even states they'll fall onto the earth and stick out the ground..
But before I digress to much from the question, I would like to return it to you for your explanation.
Because you were trying to tell me that what I believe is hogwash, I should just move on.
Man, you can do what you want, or more succinctly, do what is natural to you. That of course doesn't stop me debating the issue with you, because that is natural to me.
If you were prime minister you would probably outlaw all religious education and burn all Bibles. I could be wrong though.
I would certainly separate the issues. I would not force little teeny weeny children to be force fed it. If their parents want them to be told all about god, jesus, allah and whatever other entity out there, there are adequate places for it, (i.e church, synagogue, mosque, sunday school). I would ensure that children stick to fact, stick to reality - or if they really must be taught religion, then all religions must be taught to the same degree, aswell as beliefs in unicorns, flying hedgehogs and singing bananas.
No. Christ was the final sacrifice required for salvation.
Hmm.. salvation.. salvation...
"These then are the regulations for the burnt offering, grain offering, the sin offering, the guilt offering, the ordination offering and the fellowship offering."
Ok, we can disclude the sin offering - jesus was the scapegoat for that one, (and that is the salvation part out the way). But what about the offerings of fellowship, ordination and perhaps just a thanks to god? Earlier you were asking me if I have ever thanked god. Wouldn't a part of that thanks come in the form of sacrifice which pleases him a great deal, (according to the bible)?
These offerings were demanded not only for sins, but as a sign of respect. Are you saying that people need no longer respect god?
jesus getting himself killed somehow made your wifes period cleaner? Is that a part of salvation? Is it a sin for a woman to bleed?
No, I may have simply just studied the Bible more than you.
You're more than welcome to your assumptions.
The most important part of the Bible is the New Testament, as it’s more appropriate to us Gentiles.
jesus disagrees, as seen in Matthew 5:17-19
"Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them. In truth I tell you, till heaven and earth pass dissapear, not one dot, not one little stroke, is to dissapear from the law until all it's purpose is achieved. Therefore,
anyone who infringes even one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be considered the least in the kingdom of heaven.." (alongside all the top worshippers, and priests undoubtedly. Strange to think those that spend their entire life praising jesus and bringing people to him, get exactly the same position in heaven as those who can't abide by the laws).
So, stoned anyone to death recently?
Time permitting, study the whole Bible.
You too.
The Israelites were ex-slaves. They were under a new rule and they were going to have to be very well prepared in their new role as they had many enemies to overcome, as the Pharaoh said. The last thing they needed was trouble in their own tribe. Well that’s my take on it; obviously this won’t cut the mustard for you.
Well c'mon, they could perform brain surgery. It's a fairly recent achievement for the western world, and we also have enemies, but you don't see god giving us lessons in survival and we've managed ok - hell, better than the jews have.
Sure he has.
Can’t you see that the rules for Levite priests were meant for Levite priests?
Matthew 5:17-- It says 'anyone' who infringes. It doesn't say 'any levite who infringes'. I know how you like to take a completely literal stance.
John 8
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Amazing. In the OT, god would have closed her womb, struck her down and infected her with plague. He spent all that time telling everyone how abhorrent it is, and how much he detested it and how no person should do it, so sayeth "Yahweh your god". And if they dared do so, they would be "vomitted out", so sayeth Yahweh your god.
It is actually not good if we even judge other people. Look:
This does not concern 'we', it concerns him.. And the bible shows he hated it, and that people who engaged in it would be vomitted out, so sayeth Yahweh your god. That was
his judgement, not ours.
Their interpretations change. My Bible is the same as anyone else’s, bar the fact that there have been slight changes to make it easier to read over the years. But if you show me a KJV (Or your NIV) of the Bible I bet it is identical to mine.
This is a contradiction. If there are 'slight changes' it cannot be 'identical'. And I can prove the contrary merely by pointing out the differences in the bible. You know as well as I do that different bibles differ, and although it's generally nothing too major, it most certainly can cause a completely different interpretation of the text.
So just because we have not found any earlier evidence for the Bible you have concluded that the Sumerian text is more genuine because of some fleeting resemblances?
We have found earlier evidence, (i.e the Sumerian texts), and it is a lot more than "fleeting". You would know that if you studied it. You've already admitted you haven't, so how do you justify the conclusion that it's "fleeting"?
So why don’t you apply this philosophy to the existence of God? Maybe you do, I don’t know what flavour of atheist you are.
Ok, if it sounds pleasing: Something big and "ooh that's funky", might exist somewhere. I have not scanned the entire galaxy to show otherwise. The same could be true for leprechauns and flying centipedes. However, trying to give a definition to something based upon a single opinion of an ancient group of people who knew nothing, is an act of lunacy, especially given the fact that there are a shitload of differing versions.
Because of a lot of rain, that caused the rivers to overflow, which caused a flood. The "whole world" idea wouldn't be a surprise statement from an ancient people that would have no idea about the overall size of the planet, or thought that the planet came to an end where the horizon is.
He was born just like everyone else, and just like David Koresh thought he was something special.
I’m not saying everyone should latch onto to everything.
But just latch on to your beliefs?
But what I’m saying is, just because you haven’t experienced something, it doesn’t mean it’s not real.
So you entertain a 'possible' belief in dragons, unicorns, fairies and leprechauns?
I wasn’t talking about just the Bible here. It is always tragic when someone dies young, it’s one of the reasons why I believe kids should be taught the Bible at an early age, and they have some time to decide whether or not to believe it.
The Quran aswell, or is that just nonsenical garbage? How about the Enuma Elish, the Mahabharata etc? Surely to decide whether to believe in something or not, children should be given the entire picture, and not just your chosen version of it?
but what a nasty pasty you would look/be if you were responsible for removing religious studies and prayers from school, if there is actually a God.
Are you a supporter of schools teaching children the Quran, Enuma Elish, Mahabharata etc as much as, and along the same lines as the bible?
This is the reason why there are missionaries and establishments that cater for various adults and children. If you want to inherit the kingdom of heaven you have to become like a child, this suggests that children are covered and depending what you mean by mental retards, broadly speaking they are too. You don’t have to be literate to believe in Christ.
It's actually quite relevant that this be brought up. Today I had lunch in the Tesco cafe, as it was local, and found myself surrounded by a bunch of seriously mentally handicapped individuals. I could have gone over there and mentioned jesus, love, god and pixies, and these 40 something year old men would just sit there sucking their thumbs - completely devoid of any understanding as to what I'm saying. To inherit the kingdom of god, I could become like a child and googoo and gaga at them all day long, and that would have no impact either, except perhaps a few googoo's and gaga's in return.
You could speak jesus until you're blue in the face and hell has frozen over, and these people would not care about nor comprehend a word you're saying.
One of the guys had been spoon fed his entire existence, has his bum wiped for him, and can't even walk. He dribbles and drools, and waggles his hands - very often punching himself in the face.
Needless to say, he's never met a christian trying to convert him.
Same here, but what is important is the fruit the person produces, in other words how they act.
I've never met any christian that acts the same as another - save for a few formalities. Some are abusive, some are rude, some don't care, some do care. The list is endless. All of them tell me about these 'fruits' and then apply a completely different interpretation as to what these fruits are. To some it's faith, to some it's works yada yada yada. It was even the same in the bible. John and his cronies couldn't even agree with each other.
Do you not think that getting down on your knees and believing in Christ is a bashing to your pride if you class yourself as wise or intelligent?
Not in the slightest. It's just.. irrelevant and non evidential. Believing in jesus is no more a viable option than believing in floating apple peels. Pride doesn't come into the equation.
What did you expect exactly?
Nothing. (jot this down for future reference).
Because I would trust the experiences of the masses over the experiences (or lack of) of the minority.
"Masses" being who exactly? The handful of people who wrote the bible?
Thinking that 50 people are correct instead of them is close minded in my opinion.
Would that include the 50 people that wrote the bible? (sure that figure might be different, but you're not really in a position to say "billions" of people wrote the bible).
Look at what Jesus taught, and imagine (if you can) a world where everyone followed it. If you got this far, what did you imagine?
I imagine a world where everyone is killing their family. A man against his father, a woman against her mother yada yada yada. jesus did not come to bring peace, (so that's that out the window), but a sword. Right now we'd probably all be dead.
Hammurabi managed it over a thousand years earlier. It just shows that you don't need to be god in order to make wise rules.
What makes you think that it’s what He wanted?
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother..." (Matthew 10:34)
If you killed your dad, it’s murder. Please answer the above.
Murder? Who cares? you were earlier telling me all about the meaninglessness of the OT. All I need to do is love my neighbour, and I do love my neighbour.
So is there a simpler explanation to our current predicament then the story of Adam and Eve causing all this by doing something they shouldn’t have done?
Adam and Eve is not simple by any means. And beings as it's all part of gods master plan, Adam and Eve did something that they were supposed to do. Further to which, having no knowledge of good and evil, means they would not know that what they were going to do was bad until after they'd already done it.
No, but the Bible explains why there is no peace. Basically the fall of man opened up a can of worms.
But we can still find peace... Oh wait... oops... it's not what jesus wants or came for.
The Bible doesn’t teach this, quite the opposite actually but that’s another thread most certainly.
Not according to jesus, who came to bring a sword -
not peace. He came to 'set a man against his father, a woman against her mother'. We're only doing what he wants.
It wasn’t a failure, it was perfect and will be perfect once more once this mess has been cleared up
This is a contradiction. If it was "perfect", it wouldn't mess up in the first place.
My answer would be: This would have made us robots if we did not have free will. God gave us a choice; He left it to us, which falls in line with an aspect of love that you agree with (I think).
A 'choice' can only be made if you understand the directions. Having no knowledge of good or evil left Adam and Eve incapable of determining what the choices signified. It's like putting two balls of cheese in a cage with a mouse. If the mouse goes to the cheese on the right, you annihilate it, but if it goes to the cheese on the left, you give it all the cheese it could ever want. It is a mere lottery, luck of the draw. The mouse knows nothing of the choices it is faced with.
It's a farce, nothing more. A poorly written one at that.
Let me give you an example of what I think Jesus meant by this. If you cut yourself then you will put a plaster on or call an ambulance if it’s bad, maybe someone will do this for you. Now if you see someone who has cut themselves and they have no resources and you did, you could choose to put a plaster on their cut or call an ambulance. This someone could potentially be someone who you hate.
Which is all fine and dandy unless the guy happens to be your father, in which case jesus wants you to go against him.
Well I would say that I do know, just like I know that I exist.
That was to be expected.
The colour of Jesus is irrelevant, as I’m sure you agree.
Hell no.
Ok, sorry if I hit a sore spot.
You didn't.
I can assure you its love and not pity.
But the answer is biased. Your assurances become meaningless.
Surely the kids should be left to decide for themselves?
Indeed, and therefore the best course of action is all or none. Picking one out of the hat is ignorant.
After all it never did generations gone by any harm, or did it?
Sure it did. Those who learnt muslim beliefs are now apparently doomed to hell. Those who learnt the jewish beliefs are now apparently doomed to hell. Etc etc etc.
Love is actually pretty simple it’s just difficult to put into words these days.
I disagree.
Jesus also wasn’t given the right to speak by the leaders of the time
Didn't seem to make much difference. From the looks of it, he never stopped talking. However, I would concur that he was never given the right to write.
but He did and was crucified for doing it.
I thought he was crucified to save mankind, or was that just a convenient after effect?
What I explained is that the “us” might mean the angels, as they know good and evil.
Apologies but it seemed you missed what I was referring to.
Gen 1:26 seems to imply other beings of the same status.
Maybe. But if the Biblical scholar believed in the flood they would realise that the Euphrates river now may not be the same one described in the Bible.
The location can be gathered anyway, not just because of the Euphrates but because of the Tigris aswell, the land details, (the Tigris flows to the east of Assyria), and so on.
Ok, well I would hazard a guess that you have fallen for the evolution point of view, which is your choice and is a completely different debate.
Fallen? No. Arrived at is more to the point.
I am assuming that you have a slight doubt about whether or not God exists
Not in the slightest.
or why else would you be having this discussion and browsing the forum?
I find it interesting. I used to run a chatroom talking to alien abductees. That doesn't mean I believe in aliens, but that I find the topic interesting from a discussion point of view. I didn't choose to find it interesting, I just do.
If you had left the joke part out of your response then it would tell me that you at least wanted to know that you were slightly interested in finding God. But something tells me that you maybe have tried in the past or you did actually have a go, I hope so. What did you ask for (From God)?
Apologies, but I find a small dose of humour to be healthy. I wrote a small story a little while back that might be worth reading. You can do so
Here
You don’t have to state anything. You may have had a real occurrence of meeting a pink flying elephant, so therefore it is a fact to you. If you want to push your opinion of pink flying elephants onto others then that’s when you’ll find that the fact is only relative to you (and maybe many others, but we’ll use sciforums as the test site) and you could be unfairly dismissed as delusional because the vast majority of people do not agree with your opinion. You can replace the pink flying elephant with anything that is not commonly understood as a fact or in your words “a good fact”.
And therefore it is inherently worthless to anyone other than yourself. As a question to this, I would ask then why you would try and convince others of something when you already realise that the fact is only relative to you.
Regards
P.S Apologies for any grammatical mistakes and typos. It's far too long for me to bother correcting.
