With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians

[§outh§tar]

LOL Yes southstar that was a law given to the jews by God to follow.

Now let me ask you this question.

What Makes You Think That God is Restricted in his actions by the laws He gives to Humans to follow???????????????????????

Those Laws where given By God to His people to restrict THEIR ACTIONS, NOT HIS ACTIONS. He did not give those laws to Himself did HE?

God has perfect judgement and wisdom so there is no law that he must follow and who would vainly try to judge God? to give Him laws and restrictions to follow? YOU?

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

But it does build a case against Him.

If a God who in one part of the Bible claims to be unchanging turns out to be self-contradictory in the next part, He begins to seem awfully analogous to fallible humans who are prone to this same "shadow of turning".

This might lead one to lean towards the notion that an infallible God who behaves too much like fallible man might actually either not be infallible, or not be God.

I heard a similar argument somewhere. The point is, if the Bible says God is capable of no evil and yet He admonishes atrocities, then either He is amoral (which makes the Bible's claim false) or we come back to Him being strikingly similar to a fallible human.

 

[§outh§tar]

David F.

I really don't know what to say.. you are using circular reasoning to insist the Bible's account is true. I am REALLY trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and prune your bad habit.


If you are able to conclude that the Midianities in that verse had an orgy with Israelitte warriors and spread venereal disease and yet your only historical basis is that they were immoral and sexually "rampant" and therefore they must have had venereal disease I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Jenyar]

Population. --Taking the area of the city enclosed by the two old walls at 750,000 yards, and that enclosed by the wall of Agrippa at 1,500,000 yards, we have 2,250,000 yards for the whole. Taking the population of the old city at the probable number of the one person to 50 yards, we have 15,000 and at the extreme limit of 30 yards we should have 25,000 inhabitants for the old city, and at 100 yards to each individual in the new city about 15,000 more; so that the population of Jerusalem, in its days of greatest prosperity, may have amounted to from 30,000 to 45,000 souls, but could hardly ever have reached 50,000; and assuming that in times of festival one-half was added to this amount, which is an extreme estimate, there may have been 60,000 or 70,000 in the city when Titus came up against it. (Josephus says that at the siege of Jerusalem the population was 3,000,000; but Tacitus’ statement that it was 600,000 is nearer the truth. This last is certainly within the limits of possibility.
- Smith's Bible dictionary​

 

[Godless]

I moon you all.

Well if you'r a chick!! I might just say Thanks!!. nice ass. But if your a dood?

What a harry ass!!. :bugeye:

SouthStar; Now you see foryourself how futile it is trying to debate with theist, when your on this side of the fence.

You are unique though, becouse you did search "honestly" within the scriptures, you saw were our dilema was, how scriptures do "contradict" and questioned it, with out a blind eye, but honestly began to see the reason atheist, or agnostic become skeptics of blibical accounts. I tend to think that if you had never been here in sci, youd still be the same theist as always, I'm glad that we were a part of opening your mind, and making you realize the falsehood that has been fed to us, for millenias.

Godless.

 

[Adstar]

But it does build a case against Him.

If a God who in one part of the Bible claims to be unchanging turns out to be self-contradictory in the next part, He begins to seem awfully analogous to fallible humans who are prone to this same "shadow of turning".

This might lead one to lean towards the notion that an infallible God who behaves too much like fallible man might actually either not be infallible, or not be God.

I heard a similar argument somewhere. The point is, if the Bible says God is capable of no evil and yet He admonishes atrocities, then either He is amoral (which makes the Bible's claim false) or we come back to Him being strikingly similar to a fallible human.

It builds up no case at all. it only reveals you have created a God within your own imagination and because The Eternal God Of Abraham does not conform to your view of what He should be like you arrogantly reject Him. It is your logic that is Human and therefore faulty but you proudly declare that God does not conform to your logic God does not conform to what you judge to be right So therefore you declare yourself God of yourself.

Pride comes before destruction, how true.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Godless]

It is your logic that is Human and therefore faulty but you proudly declare that God does not conform to your logic God does not conform to what you judge to be right So therefore you declare yourself God of yourself.

See this is how a fool mistrusts his own judgement "I'm only human" as if something else exists with a consciousness superior to one's own, you believe the crap that you believe because you were tought as a child, that it is so, you don't trust your own judgement, because your are tought to be a failure, you fail to see with "reason" because it's reason that theist try to destroy, the enemy of god is "logic" that's why you claim that we are "only human" but it is logic that would dictate, that a consciousness superior to our own is a contradiction, because to possess a consciousness one has to have an identity, what "identity" do you ascribe to your god?. You can't even identify that entity you so dearly love, and fool yourself with the existence of some superior real of existence by his side for been a (goody tooshoo), But to claim that a man possess his own will, and his own volition, that his own mind, strives for reason to understand nature, existence, is a mortal sin. It is because this entity you call "god" only wants idiots to follow!!.

Godless.

 

[Pete]

Hi Southstar,
If you ever see a book called Stages of Faith by James Fowler, grab it and read it. It's interesting, and I think very relevant for you right now. If the model described in it has any validity, then you might recognize certain aspects of stage-3 to stage-4 transition happening in yourself.

 

[mis-t-highs]

Faith has been discussed numerous times, on this forum, I'm sure southstar does not need to read, more about blind faith.
I linked to it, and found nothing new.

 

[David F.]

David F.

I really don't know what to say.. you are using circular reasoning to insist the Bible's account is true. I am REALLY trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and prune your bad habit.


If you are able to conclude that the Midianities in that verse had an orgy with Israelitte warriors and spread venereal disease and yet your only historical basis is that they were immoral and sexually "rampant" and therefore they must have had venereal disease I don't know what to tell you.

Circular? I don't follow. Circular reasoning means I go from one fact to a second fact (and possibly on to a third and fourth) and back to the first fact - first therefore second therefore third therefore first. Where am I being circular?

Are you denying that sexually transmitted diseases existed in the ancient world? If so, then what do you think Prov 7:21-27 is talking about? It is talking about venereal disease.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say the record is true. What "plauge" do you think started when the Israelite men "committed whoredoms with the daughters of the Midianites"? I assume you know what a whore is so you can get the idea what whoredoms would be. A plauge is the spread of a disease, not necessarily instantly deadly but then the biblical record does not say it was deadly, simply that it was a plauge (disease) spreading to those who committed whoredoms. If this is not enough to show the disease was spread sexually then what do you think it means?

 

[MagiAwen]

I'm just back to mess things up again

I had thought david said that he didn't say there was venereal disease in the bible and it came later in history when archeologists figured it out.

So..if that is true, if god said a land was diseased it could have been moral disease, such as sodomy, beasiality, incest and baby sacrifice....which I know I have read in the bible a few times that god wanted people like these out of the way because he did not want his followers to be corrupted by those types of people.

So..I wonder....can we really tell when god is citing reality or when he is speaking in metaphors, similies and parables. And who are his followers to make that distinction? Or is it only when in science, if they discover something then it must correlate....is that it?

I couldn't really be bothered to read every single post in this thread since it has degenerated so much and some people still haven't actually answered questions that were posed to them.

I remember a section where david talked about porn. Hmmm first time I ever heard of porn in religious documents....might get some peeps interested in your religion though....good marketing technique.

 

[Adstar]

It is your logic that is Human and therefore faulty but you proudly declare that God does not conform to your logic God does not conform to what you judge to be right So therefore you declare yourself God of yourself.

See this is how a fool mistrusts his own judgement "I'm only human" as if something else exists with a consciousness superior to one's own, you believe the crap that you believe because you were tought as a child,

Correction I did not come to believe in Jesus until I was in my latter teens. So your grand theroy about child indoctrination is wrong.
What is worse a limited human being who has the wisdom to know he is limited or a limited human being who is deluded into thinking he is wise?

you don't trust your own judgement, because your are tought to be a failure, you fail to see with "reason" because it's reason that theist try to destroy, the enemy of god is "logic" that's why you claim that we are "only human"

That’s right I do not trust in myself nor should I because I am limited in my perceptions. As for the failure point what do you mean? The enemy of God is not logic at all for someone with true logic will know that God is. But those who rely on human logic limited by their physical perceptions and mental abilities will never reach the logic that is God.

but it is logic that would dictate, that a consciousness superior to our own is a contradiction, because to possess a consciousness one has to have an identity, what "identity" do you ascribe to your god?. You can't even identify that entity you so dearly love, and fool yourself with the existence of some superior real of existence by his side for been a (goody tooshoo),

“logic that would dictate” who’s logic? Your logic? I know who God is He is the God of Abraham who has revealed himself through the prophets. And as for the “(goody tooshoo)” comment, where have I said that anyone has to be a goody tooshoo ? I have made it clear time and time again that thinking that one can reach moral perfection in this life is a delusion of the proud.

But to claim that a man possess his own will, and his own volition, that his own mind, strives for reason to understand nature, existence, is a mortal sin. It is because this entity you call "god" only wants idiots to follow!!.

That’s your bigoted view isn’t it? Along with the child indoctrination and the goody tooshoo’s mindset your locked into. All false views created by a proud and rebellious man trusting in his own faulty logic.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[MagiAwen]

What is worse a limited human being who has the wisdom to know he is limited or a limited human being who is deluded into thinking he is wise?

A person who is a limited human being who knows he is limited is worse than a human who thinks he is wise. Why? The people that follow humans that think they are wise are the ones that know they are limited. I am only a bug….and I follow that dude over there that tells me how wise he is because I am limited and I know I am limited therefore I will not go out of that limit to think he who proclaims he is wise is incorrect.

…and don’t even patronize me about that comment….it reflects what this thread has come down to.

That’s right I do not trust in myself nor should I because I am limited in my perceptions.

I am sincerely sorry you feel that way about yourself Adstar. For, if you cannot trust yourself, how can you trust anything?

But those who rely on human logic limited by their physical perceptions and mental abilities will never reach the logic that is God.

Faith and logic have no business being in the same sentence. God is not found by logic, he is found by emotion, trust, and faith of the that is but one cannot touch. Faith is inherently not logical. That is not to say that it cannot be reasonable through the perspectives of an individual.

All false views created by a proud and rebellious man trusting in his own faulty logic.

How dare you judge someone else. Isn’t it up to your maker to do that?

Usually I try to refrain from stooping to such a blow, but you are becoming unreasonable.

 

[pavlosmarcos]

Are you denying that sexually transmitted diseases existed in the ancient world? If so, then what do you think Prov 7:21-27 is talking about? It is talking about venereal disease.

proverbs 7:20: he took a bag of money with him; at full moon he will come home."
21: With much seductive speech she persuades him; with her smooth talk she compels him.
22: All at once he follows her, as an ox goes to the slaughter, or as a stag is caught fast
23: till an arrow pierces its entrails; as a bird rushes into a snare; he does not know that it will cost him his life.
24: And now, O sons, listen to me, and be attentive to the words of my mouth.
25: Let not your heart turn aside to her ways, do not stray into her paths;
26: for many a victim has she laid low; yea, all her slain are a mighty host.
27: Her house is the way to Sheol, going down to the chambers of death.

david she could be killing her victims in any number of ways, it seems to me you are a pervert, you tend to pickout only as you see it, you say porn whores and sexually transmitted diseases, etc..
the above scripture could almost be about delilah.
did delilah have a disease, when she lured samson, with her seductive ways.

 

[§outh§tar]

Circular? I don't follow. Circular reasoning means I go from one fact to a second fact (and possibly on to a third and fourth) and back to the first fact - first therefore second therefore third therefore first. Where am I being circular?

Are you denying that sexually transmitted diseases existed in the ancient world? If so, then what do you think Prov 7:21-27 is talking about? It is talking about venereal disease.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say the record is true. What "plauge" do you think started when the Israelite men "committed whoredoms with the daughters of the Midianites"? I assume you know what a whore is so you can get the idea what whoredoms would be. A plauge is the spread of a disease, not necessarily instantly deadly but then the biblical record does not say it was deadly, simply that it was a plauge (disease) spreading to those who committed whoredoms. If this is not enough to show the disease was spread sexually then what do you think it means?

David F.

You have removed the discussion entirely from the original passage in question.

 

[§outh§tar]

Hi Southstar,
If you ever see a book called Stages of Faith by James Fowler, grab it and read it. It's interesting, and I think very relevant for you right now. If the model described in it has any validity, then you might recognize certain aspects of stage-3 to stage-4 transition happening in yourself.

If anything at all, I am a stage 6 and no less.

 

[§outh§tar]

LOL Yes southstar that was a law given to the jews by God to follow.

Now let me ask you this question.

What Makes You Think That God is Restricted in his actions by the laws He gives to Humans to follow???????????????????????

Those Laws where given By God to His people to restrict THEIR ACTIONS, NOT HIS ACTIONS. He did not give those laws to Himself did HE?

God has perfect judgement and wisdom so there is no law that he must follow and who would vainly try to judge God? to give Him laws and restrictions to follow? YOU?

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

How convenient of you to ignore these verses:

Jer. 31:29-31
"In those days people will no longer say, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes--his own teeth will be set on edge. "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah."

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him


According to the verse in bold and the verse in Ezekiel as well, God promised that He would not punish the children for the sins of the fathers. You can read it in context if you don't believe me. Therefore you harangue is baseless.

 

[§outh§tar]

It builds up no case at all. it only reveals you have created a God within your own imagination and because The Eternal God Of Abraham does not conform to your view of what He should be like you arrogantly reject Him. It is your logic that is Human and therefore faulty but you proudly declare that God does not conform to your logic God does not conform to what you judge to be right So therefore you declare yourself God of yourself.

Pride comes before destruction, how true.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

That you again for writing a whole lot of crap that has nothing whatsoever to do with my post. At least have the intelligence to make relevant posts once in a while.

 

[§outh§tar]

SouthStar your on your way to becoming a "militant atheist" !! next you will be going to church and high-lighting all contradictions on their bibles!. "don't". But I've allways delighted reading your posts, when you were fighting for your faith, and now when you are defending your new position. Good show mate.

Godless.

It just irks me when you read some of the posts in here by people who insist they are right and you are wrong regardless of how stupid..

 

[§outh§tar]

I'm a little confused as well. How does Southstar know the Septuagint has 6000 errors? Only by a comparison with the Masoretic text could he determine whether a passage was an "error." But he would then be assuming the Masoretic text is perfect.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm

In which case we honestly have no idea which text is reliable and therefore it would be dishonest to take either (in part or in full) as "gospel".

Possible as well. But note that this report in the Bible is second hand, so even if the report was wrong, the passage is valid.

It is dishonest to count the passage as valid if the report is wrong especially since it is "second hand".

Again, this is based upon Josephus' assessment, and Josephus is not an infalliable wittness. He is biase, as being a Jew, and would be likely to consider Pilate's actions cruel even if Pilate was only moderately crule. Furthermore, Pilate could also be cruel in order to control the crowds; the crucifixion was systematic of a long record of character flaws.

Just like the Bible was written by biased Christians who "would be likely" to deify Jesus even if that's not what He taught. Remember, as you said, it's "second hand".

 

[okinrus]

In which case we honestly have no idea which text is reliable and therefore it would be dishonest to take either (in part or in full) as "gospel".

First, this argument might be valid if the gospels were chosen upon historical evidence. But the gospels were chosen because God and Church revealed the gospels. And because all of the NT authors quote from the Septugaint, the Septuagint is a worthy translation, if not more worthy than the Masoretic that developed by Jewish tradition. The Septuagint, of course, could have some errors but no error that would disqualify itself from canonical Scripture.

Second, it betrays a misunderstanding of the weight of Scripture. While all Scripture is good for reproof and correction, Scripture is to be interpreted--not by men but by God revealing Himself. Hence the Scriptures can have imperfections as long as God's revelation to man is correct.

But if the Scriptures have imperfections, then it begs the question of why God allows these small imperfections? Well, it's possible that God allows small errors so that men, even when reading the Scripture, go to Him for their questions. Why should men go to their own contorted understanding of particular passages? If the Scripture came in perfect gold, written in stone, written to be perfect, then we would still have the law written in stone.

Now back to your second point. If I say, "the Bible says Christ was crucified," then the statement is true: that is what the Bible says. On the other hand, if I say, "Christ was crucified," then the statement is false if Christ was not crucified. How does this apply to the case mentioned? Well, if you read relevant portion of the Bible concerning the prophets raising from their graves, only the reports were mentioned. Whether whether the reports were false or not was not mentioned, and so we believe these reports were made by trustworthy individuals.

This idea that the reports are trustworthy is further developed by there being little reason to reject the reports.

The occurrence and site of prophets is not a new thing: Both Peter and John saw Jesus speak to Moses and Elijah, not in bodily form but in spiritual form. Hence the prophets, so also, must be in heaven, not in bodily form but in spirtual. Of course, this view may contradict the doctrine believed by some Christians; it does not, I believe, contradict the Church's.

Furthermore, there are visions of saints such as Ignatius, who is seen in heaven, and Stephen, for whom the sky opened; the doctrine of the spirits of the dead going to heaven is an early Christian doctrine and is recorded in the Bible. Although the book Ecclestiastics suggests the dead know nothing, remaining in the ground, this depection was a poetic Old Testament view of death: Why accept this book's depiction after Christ's death?