Castin

I am curious what you think of God's promise to never again wipe out humanity. Why do you think he made this promise? Why didn't he say "I'll do the same again if you ever get that bad again"?

I think that is a great question.  I don't know the answer. I can only speculate.  I think God could destroy the world if he wanted to. But I think that perhaps his plan from eternity was for something else for humanity.  After all, he did not destroy it completely.  He could have done that as well.  For me, I hope we never get that bad again. Sometimes I wonder of course. Yet - God I think through Jesus has done something amazing which has the power to change the world - so it does never need to get stage again. 

Jesus' intervention into this world has changed it significantly. People can try and deny his impact - but it is undeniable. What the world was like then compared to now is nothing short of miraculous.  Is the world perfect now? No, not even close. Yet compared to even a hundred years ago it is staggering. And to go back 2000 years ago - to world where only men had real power - and only then if you belonged to a particular nationality or nation. A place where woman had less rights than slaves and children even less so.  A place where life held no value unless you were a Roman Citizen. Where people literally threw you to the lions if you did agree with them.

A place where famine, disease, and poverty was widespread everywhere - not just in a few places.  

The world has changed dramatically since Jesus arrived 2000 years ago. I know people are skeptical - but history is full of pictures which reveal that the reason things changed is because people were serving their Lord Jesus.   And although skeptics will always question their motives - the history books reveal over and over the same things. 

Why did God not destroy the world again? I think his plan was Jesus. 

• The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."
  

MOST (but not all) people who call themselves "Atheist" try to make it clear that they are NOT saying there is NO POSSIBLE GOD(S). Instead, they're simply asserting that there is no compelling evidence of any SPECIFIC GOD(S).

Exactly my problem with them. You do not get to 'make clear' that the definition you operate under, isn't what you actually operate under. Then don't call yourself an Atheist.

Atheist always fall back on 'AGNOSTIC' criteria when it suits them.

No, ATHEISM IS THE REJECTION OF ANY GOD.

If someone isn't sure, or just says, 'well there is no proof I don't know' then they are agnostic. To take the FAITH based belief that 'there is no creator' is just that, FAITH.

So, here's my question.

Do you have "faith" that NANABOZHO is real?

Do you have "faith" that NANABOZHO is fake?

Are you suggesting that both positions require equal "faith"?

Sorry old chap, that might have been what rational and reasonable people thought in the past, but it is not how it is anymore.  Today the landscape has changed. When you attack a person's beliefs you are attacking that person.  This is what is called progress.  This is what the entire cancel generation is pushing. This is the new truth. 

And people in this generation, when their beliefs are being attacked and ridiculed, are unable to separate themselves from the argument and their identity. Hence, why when Christians suggest that homosexuality is condemned by God as sin, that many gays and others are self-harming. And Christians when they pushback on this idea - are not listened too.  

But it works both ways.  It is not just a one way street.  

if you went further you would realize that he didnt debate my arguments about the logic of God

1. Everything God did in the Bible was for good reasons.
   
2. An action is good simply because the actor believes it is for good purposes.
   

I just don't see any point and as castin has already pointed out we are not getting anywhere and that does not make for entertaining discussion. 

Can't say I recall discussing Revelations 21:8, with any of my family members.

I recall by Dad mentioning once, that he didn't think Martin Luther had a very high opinion of Revelations.

Can't say I recall discussing John 3:18, with any of my family members.

And Can't say I recall discussing Mark 16:16, with any of my family members.

Eh, probably too much of a knee jerk reaction when I speak of 'all my family being such well loving, understanding Christians.

I imagine one of the reasons 'I'm an atheist is my family didn't focus on religion enough.

I recall our mother would encourage us to say our prayers each night early on, when we were together at a family meal we'd say grace, went to church a 'few times but not often.

Had kid Bible's early on, that they read with us.

Later on though, both the parents were busy working most of the time, and the religious conditioning fell off a fair bit. (Though I don't mean religious conditioning in a negative fashion)

Church ceased all together,

Mother was working usually, so the night time prayer fell off in time, for me anyway, but hey maybe third child is forgotten child. Rest of my siblings seem religious enough.

Religion really isn't something I discuss with them 'much, though I do at times,

Never told them I'm an atheist, feels awkward at times,

And again, I likely praise my family more than they deserve,

But it's the sentiment I get from them and their words, actions.

'Mostly/at times.

I'll let you know what they think about those references later, after I ask them.

so what

So I'm not sure what your point is.

so what? why does that matter

So you are no longer interested in arguing your position?

I am

Then proceed.

I have

Then perhaps respond to my points or failing that just a recap of your argument to date?

what points?

My family, as I take it view Christianity as the best path to living a 'good life, to being closer to God.

But I don't think they see it as a requirement to entering Heaven.

They have faith in a kind, loving, understanding, God, who possesses knowledge beyond their ken

That will in some manner answer for all that has occurred bad in the world,

That in some manner even the lost or fallen of humanity will be brought back into the light.,

Not dammed to some eternity of fire, smoke, darkness, and suffering.

Afterlife being a vague and mysterious thing, what.

I think they have faith that good people, even without faith in God, will be brought into the fold,

Even people who deny Gods existence.

They also don't profess to judge people's fate after,

Let God sort them out so to speak, I think.

much less that he married Mary Magdalene.

Isn't one of the requirements of being a rabbi is to be married?

Jesus is called Rabbi in conversation by Apostle Peter in Mark 9:5 and Mark 11:21, and by Judas Iscariot in Mark 14:45 by Nathanael in John 1:49. 

And wasn't there a direct instruction from god himself to " go forth and multiply"?  And wouldn't this then mean that  said rabbi/ Jesus also had children?

But none of this is answering the the question in the OP , is it?

I would say that it's supposed to be a way of being an example. God commands that His children be baptized, so Jesus is baptized. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is made clear that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and marriage is another important part of God's plan for His children. This is biased by me being raised Mormon, who support eternal marriage as essential to obtaining the highest degree of glory, so I'm not sure how true that is for other sects.

I don't hold to the Catholic position of immaculate conception.  I do take the view that Jesus was conceived by the Spirit of God. I don't think Jesus is half man and half God.  I think he is fully God and fully man. And yes, I understand that is problematic for many people.  As for Jesus being born with original sin or not, I have not yet formed a conclusion. I have traditionally believed he was not, taking the view that his Father somehow nullified original sin.  Yet, I am becoming more aware of the fact that Jesus had to be able to identify in every way as a human in all of their temptations. Not having original sin, means he is off to an advantage that others do not have. Yet, on the other hand, Adam was also created without original sin - so the comparison might be adequate since it is the contrast between the first and the final Adam which is significant in the primary sense. Nevertheless, the secondary sense is also relevant which is where I sit at the moment. 

This of course then raises the question in your last paragraph. If Jesus was born with original sin, the implication is that he was not truly sinless? I am not so convinced of that. Yes, I follow the logic because I would insist that people sin because they are sinners - not sinners because they sin.  Yet in Christian circles we do distinguish between the sin and sins.  I have had this discussion with Brother Thomas - although as I recall not once did he ever actually engage with the discussion. I think it went over his head as most of the stuff I write. Nevertheless - it is an important distinction. And one which I will have to explore more fully. Sin is the original sin. IT is the sin which I often label TREASON and is a generic covenantal sin of the entire human population. Sins on the other hand are our personal individual sins which we commit because we are sinners. 

Is it possible that Jesus was able to have original sin - that is - be identified with all of humanity in the generic covenantal sin of the human population, and not commit personal sins? Well the bible clearly says he was without sin. And this is also further demonstrated in the fact that he rose from the dead. Yet the further question of whether or not being born into original sin - even if he did not commit any person sins - still makes him sinful per se? And at the moment I would have to say IDK.  Hence I have not formed a conclusion in respect of whether he has original sin or not.   On this matter I am still seeking wisdom. There are many forks in the road as it were. Many of which I have not traveled down so far. Yet, like any one who knows how to read a book properly, I am suspending my judgment until I have understood the arguments.  Any person who reads a book and comes to a conclusion in the first chapter - has not properly read the book. And if they form a conclusion before they understand properly the arguments - I would say that they are insulting not only the author but themselves.  

Not really a fan of the book of Job. Not only does the Yahweh kill Job's children just to test Job he also completely misses the point of why that is an unacceptable thing to do as e evidenced by the fact that he considered replacement children to be  a suitable way to make up for killing the first ones. I understand it was an answer (one of many presented in the old testament) to the problem of suffering even arguably the best one since at least it isn't engaging in outright victim blaming but it isn't really a satisfying answer and it does basically excuse Job's abuser instead denying his right to even question his abuser.

Although I might note that I am not yet of the view to dismiss the fact that he might have been born with original sin. He was born of Mary - a human after all. Even if it is the case that he also conceived by the Holy Spirit.  I am still considering my view about that thought.  Yet it does not change my view about the fact that he JESUS was sinless whilst on earth - otherwise his resurrection would not taken place.   It was only because of this truth that we have the resurrection. 

it was morally right, it has to be

Why does it have to be?

i would say no as clearly God had conditions on earning his favor 

discuss, debate

Eh, the bish incident really turned me off the site for a while.

i still miss Bish.

As a rule, I see a problem with looking at any ancient texts without taking into consideration the context of the time, people, language, and culture.

However, I also see a problem with looking at the Bible through the lens of inerrancy, as I believe it was a book written by quite fallible humans from quite a long time ago on the road of moral and intellectual progress.

The folks who wrote the bible were definitely fallible. But it really boils down to whether or not God exists, and actually leads, guides, and empowers weak fallible men. If God doesn't exist, then the skies the limit on how many errors would be in the Bible. If God exists, and actually did inspire the authors of scripture, and those who chose the canons, then why should I think there are errors?

Theoretically, after I pass on and meet the creator, it's possible He may tell me there's that one verse in Malachi that is wrong, and/or shouldn't be there. But why should I think any verse is wrong?

If God purposed for a written document to contain everything He wanted to convey, even if someone tried to sabotage the writings to contain error, it would most likely fail. The bible is full of attempts at defying God's plan, and inadvertently help fulfill God's plan (like Christ's crucifixion). Do you ever see those movies or tv shows where someone tries to run away from something, going the opposite direction, but ends up in the same location? In the context of Yahweh being real, it would be far more difficult to change the bible (into false literature) than writing divinely inspired words, and choosing which books should be included in the bible. Not even Thomas Jefferson could do it.

If you found out that  Yahweh exists, how would you view the fallible/infallible biblical issue? Do you think God would allow for scriptural error?

What I mean by contemporary view is exactly how Ludo, and many others view the text. They read it as a group of  little children mocking Elisha's lack of hair. Elisha gets offended because he's sensitive about it, throws a tantrum, commands 2 bears to come out and slaughter the little culprits.

Your understanding is correct,

although I'll point out that more than likely Elisha's life was in danger. So verbal insults was not the only issue at play here.

It is interesting that you think this means Abraham knew God would prevent the sacrifice, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to think it meant Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from the dead after Abraham had gone through with it and sacrificed him (Hebrews 11:17-19). Of course, that is a Christian perspective and I remind myself that Christians did not write Genesis.

Oh I know. Maybe a better way to put it would be prevention of Isaac's death.

But I don't think that passage in Hebrews eliminates the possibility that Abraham didn't assume he would have to plunge the knife into him.

8 Abraham answered, “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.” And the two of them went on together.

So for the sake of argument I will ask this: If Abraham knew God wouldn't let him go through with it, was it really a test? Was the angel really justified in declaring "Now I know you fear God"?

Yes. An example of this would be Peter who knew Jesus was the Son of God, had seen His miracles, etc. But, fear gripped him when he tried walking on water. The disciples had seen miracles, but were still inhibited in their faith when facing a large group of hungry people, with just a few fish and loaves of bread. Faith doesn't end with finding God. There's still the calling. If God told you to face a lion, and it will flee, you still have to face a 500 lbs. beast face to face. When a believer finds God, their calling is revealed

sometime after. The calling is usually something desirable, but impossible on our own ability. It's tough because we have to rely on God to see it through. If you found God today, you may find you're called to sing. You may say that singing karaoke is fun, but that's as far as you would ever go. You don't have to worry about forgetting your lines, talking in between songs to the audience, etc. So within your own strength, you can stick with karaoke, sing as you read along, and get a nice round of applause. But if you were called to sing in concert settings, you'd have to go on faith that God will enable you. So all that to say that yes, it was an act of faith for Abraham to take his son up the mountain because he still had to deal with the physical appearance of danger to his son.

In addition, there's even a possibility that the instruction didn't even come directly from God, as the Hebrew word for God in this text includes people in authority. Human sacrifice was common practice back then, and the instruction may have come from an authoritarian taken as a word/command from God. This was before an Israelite nation, so God was not yet perceived as the God of the Jews. Truthfully, I don't know if the command came directly from God, or authoritarians (and I'm comfortable either way), but imagine all the wasted hoopla over this subject if the command in this text came from perceived oracle's of God?

This is indeed interesting. To my knowledge, the text uses the two terms Elohim and Yahweh. Are you then referring to Elohim, which I know was sometimes used to refer to kings and profits (authorities)?

Yes.

I admit the Old Testament God does often come across as mean-spirited to me, but this does not strike me as unusual for the period at all. The gods of this time were very often fierce, brutal, and warlike. We are talking about a tribal people living very close to the edge of survival, constantly subjected to violence and warfare with other tribes, totally at the mercy of pestilence and nature. What we go through always shapes what we believe. What else can we realistically expect? They wanted a strong, fierce god who rewarded blind loyalty, favored only them, and rained wrath and destruction upon their enemies. Much later Jews, the ones who became the early Christians, wanted a different sort of God (a much better one, imo - ahem) and wrote a very different testament (a much better one, imo - ahem).

Yes, but they weren't masochists. They wanted a god like all the other nations. It was common for nations to embrace a national god, and erecting a statue of their god. That was the appeal of the golden calf. That was supposed to be the equivalent of Dagon, Bael, etc. They didn't want a God that would hold them accountable for their lifestyle.

The OT might appear mean-spirited, but so does "Scared Straight", which has been proven quite effective. The OT places a lot of emphasis on the judgments of peoples. If the OT were a fictional novel, the author would have placed a lot of emphasis on the crimes that brought on the judgments. But because the bible contains testimonies, it throws people off who assume it's fiction because fictional writers focus on qualifying it's heroes with details, whereas people who give testimonies present simply bare facts. In a court of law, that's all the judge is interested in ("just the facts ma'am" - Joe Friday).

 "Do you on some level think any parts of the Bible are wrong?"

In retrospect, a much easier entree into the discussion, wish I'd thought of it. 

All in the title. I've decided that if Jesus existed, he most likely resurrected. 

But did Jesus exist at all? Is the whole thing myth, or is it history? Share.

If you begin from the position of God's infallibility and the Bible's inerrancy as the inspired word of God, then it seems to me that no story in the Bible can be wrong enough that it is acceptable to hate or dislike it. If it seems wrong to you or to others, you will believe you or they have misunderstood it, that there is some deeper meaning you or they do not yet understand, or even refuse to believe (in the case of atheists/skeptics) - and your faith will drive you to find a meaning that is compatible with your faith. That is just what it means to look at the Bible through the lens of inerrancy, and it seems rather to me that you are asking if there are any Christians who don't look at the Bible through that lens.

Sort of...it's not really a lens of inerrancy anymore, though, it's more like a 'filter of contemporary.' The words in the bible are the words in the bible, and if it's not meant to be read or understood in anything but its native language, it shouldn't be published in any other language, because that risk misinterpretation. If these words are difficult, as they really are, for Christians to square with a character (god / Jesus) who they've been taught is nothing but love and justice and all things good, then you're correct, their faith seems likely to drive them toward any explanation, no matter how flimsy (see: Rod's explanation of the bible's instructions on who's okay to own as a slave, i.e.). These post-hoc rationalizations would indicate really clearly that there's a level of discomfort between the book and contemporary values. I don't expect a Christian to say 'the bible is wrong.' I hope there are some who wonder why the god they're taught about as a naive child isn't the same god in the book they're told is a modern manual to daily life. 

Welcome back [mildly]

Not to put you on the spot, but do you see the problem with assuming a contemporary interpretation of the Elisha texts disallowing all other consideration?

A key factor in these texts is that Abraham believed his son would live. He hung onto a specific promise that would require his young son to remain alive, marry, and have children. This portion of scripture always seems suspiciously absent in his referencing.

In addition, there's even a possibility that the instruction didn't even come directly from God, as the Hebrew word for God in this text includes people in authority. Human sacrifice was common practice back then, and the instruction may have come from an authoritarian taken as a word/command from God. This was before an Israelite nation, so God was not yet perceived as the God of the Jews. Truthfully, I don't know if the command came directly from God, or authoritarians (and I'm comfortable either way), but imagine all the wasted hoopla over this subject if the command in this text came from perceived oracle's of God?

I don't really think it's about inerrancy/infallibility, so much as the idea that the bible speaks of a mean spirited creator.

Have you been watching the new Snowpiercer television show?

If I snapped, which I don't recall, it would have been a long time ago.

See, the people who go with two are usually less educated, so providing them with the truth would be a lot easier in a fun, palatable format.

With that said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f6-MDhygWc

Why is that complicated?

Who uses identity politics?

What you should do is create Maga masks for your family. They will surely wear them without question then.

For some reason this health crisis is being looked at through the lens of identity politics,...

For some reason???

It's been causing a bit of friend/family friction.

You let your family meet your friends? Rookie mistake.

I see the fear in the elite's eyes. I really do.

Now, time for some icecream.

For some reason...

Gee, wonder if this is all about power-grabbing? No really, elites do care about you, they really do.

Option 1) Corona virus is going to lead to human extinction if we don't all camp in our bunkers and stockpile TP immediately.

Option 2) Corona virus social distancing measures are just another part of a communist conspiracy to take over the world.

Option 3) Wearing a mask is kind of annoying.

So here is the mystery... why does it seem pretty much everyone is going with option one or two?