Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
The Christian god himself is "prideful in the negative sense."
How does that figure? Please explain.
Isn't hypocrisy a sin? I'm pretty sure it is, and in this, the Christian god is a hypocrite.
How does hypocrisy apply to God?
But anyway, I wouldn't call that pride at all. I wouldn't even call it arrogance, as arrogance is an exaggerated belief of one's self worth. I'd call that confidence, and again, there's nothing wrong with confidence either. If I'm the best in the world at something, believing I am and saying I am is perfectly fine.
Not following the connection in your last thought.
I'd say it's more sinful to say it isn't, as that implies jealousy, and jealousy is a biblical sin(but wait, the Christian god is also jealous. Hypocrisy again!).
Again, there is righteous jealousy and destructive jealousy. You combine the two into one. Human jealousy is usually resentful or envious over someone or something that someone has in a negative way. God's jealousy is protective jealousy and a positive for His people. He wants the best for them. Yet His permissive will allows them a choice. Since God is sovereign and has control over all things since He is the Creator of all things how can He be envious of something He already has?
"God does not envy an human being or anything that any human being possesses. God has no rivals...In the original languages in which the Bible is written, Hebrew and Greek, the words translated as "jealousy" in English do not always have negative connotations. In fact, the Greek word often translated "jealous" is zēlos, from which we get the English word "zealous," referring more to zeal and ardor rather than jealousy...Jealousy is often thought of as being a negative trait. So, many people think that the Bible's description of God as jealous means that He must be a divine hypocrite. However, this page has shown that in the original languages in which the Bible is written, the words do not have those negative definitions. Since the word used to describe the jealousy of God is not even the same word used to describe human jealousy, it is clear that the apparent contradiction is just a result of an inability of the translated language (English) to accurately reflect the original language (Hebrew). There is no slight on the character of God in the original language."
2 Corinthians 11:2 (NASB)
2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
Your quote really has nothing to do with being proud or humble, but I'll comment on that: There is absolutely nothing logically wrong with being proud of something. Pride is very useful. It helps us do better work, be better people, and find happiness in simple things. Why would a benevolent god shun such a thing? Your god not only shuns it, but calls it a cardinal sin! Ridiculous.
That is not the kind of pride I'm speaking of. You speak of pride in the positive sense. I totally agree with that kind of pride. I'm speaking of pride in the negative sense, or arrogant boasting might be another way of expressing it. Pride in the negative sense puts itself first. It creates itself or something else as the idol, the thing it puts in place of God.
If you take a look at my context I said that God opposes or resists the proud, those who are arrogant and boastful; the ones who deny Him.
God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. - Me
Negative sense: James 4:6
But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”
You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; and all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.
Strong's:
Definition- showing one's self above others, overtopping, conspicuous above others, pre-eminent
- with an overweening estimate of one's means or merits, despising others or even treating them with contempt, haughty
Proud, arrogant, disdainful. From huper and phaino; appearing above others, i.e. haughty.
***
Positive sense: 2 Corinthians 1:14
just as you also partially did understand us, that we are your reason to be proud as you also are ours, in the day of our Lord Jesus.
Cognate: 2745 kaúxēma (a neuter noun) – boasting, focusing on the results of exulting/boasting (note the -ma suffix). This boasting (exulting) is always positive when it is in the Lord, and always negative when based on self.
therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure.
The Greek words for the two kinds of pride are different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrutalTruth
"Pretty good answer. In theory, the comprehension would come from contemplation of the word, which makes it personally interpretative, which makes it inconsistent being that personal interpretation is subjective, which explains the hundreds of different Christian denominations, which out right proves that if God indeed guided the hands of the authors of the bible, then he's either full of shit, or he's very, very imperfect."
Thanks for the vote of confidence (I think)! (^8
While personal interpretation can be subjective there is a true meaning for correspondence to take place. You have to understand the author's meaning. To understand the Bible you have to understand what the Author/authors has/have said. Unfortunately, this is seldom done. Understanding the culture of the times, the audience of address, and the timeframe is a must. Determining the different types of language such as for instance figurative, apocalyptic, poetic, or literal narrative is also essential.
While denominationalism is a problem there is a bond between true Christians that foregoes these lines of distinction because there are essentials that cannot be compromised and a person still be a Christian.
God has given His word which is everything we need for salvation and a relationship with Him.
As for His imperfection, that is your opinion, not mine. He expresses it better than I could:
Isaiah 55:8-11
While denominationalism is a problem there is a bond between true Christians that foregoes these lines of distinction because there are essentials that cannot be compromised and a person still be a Christian.
God has given His word which is everything we need for salvation and a relationship with Him.
As for His imperfection, that is your opinion, not mine. He expresses it better than I could:
Isaiah 55:8-11
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord.
9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
10 “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth
And making it bear and sprout,
And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
11 So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.
God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. They find meaning in what He says, and what He says is reasonable and logical when rightly interpreted. It all comes together and fits like an OJ glove! (^8
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Reason and logic.
Its words give reasons that very often can be confirmed to a reasonable degree.
It makes sense were as other worldviews do not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
We comprehend Him in three ways that I know of, to the extent that He has revealed Himself in what has been made (the creation/universe), by His written revelation of Himself (the Bible), and via His Son and His Spirit. The Son and Spirit speak from their consciousness to ours. The third would be akin to me knowing you to the extent that you express yourself to me by your thoughts through our correspondence. If you deny God the third does not manifest itself to you in an intimate way in which God confirms His presence via life situations, nor does He relay the deeper meaning of Scripture, the spiritual significance found in the OT and disclosed in the NT that points to the Son (Luke 24:44). When you deny God, you put an idol or false belief in His place and close down that intimate knowledge (Romans 1:18-26).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
let's say you had lived as a contemporary of Joan of Arc, a devout Christian who claimed that God spoke to her, telling her it was his will that she help lead France to victory against England. Judging her claim against the "blueprint" of the Bible, would you have believed her?I do not know enough of her story to make a decision at present. I have not done much reading on her or the culture of the time.That's a valid answer. I don't consider it a dodge. Intimate knowledge of the situation is necessary to make an informed judgment.
Yeah, I would botch it up.
You say you believe some wars are just, and I agree -- well, more like I think some wars start for reasons that are just. But do you think that God ever truly supports the sociopolitical goals of certain nations or powers, ever favors one side over another in a political conflict? He was known to do this in the Bible. Do you believe he takes sides in post-biblical history?
I see Him blessing nations that honor Him. I believe the USA is one of those nations. I see similarities when nations forget or turn from Him to what happened with OT Israel.
I used to have a friend who claimed to be a "Word of Faith" or what some call a "name it and claim it" believer. I struggled with his teachings for years, questioning them and praying about them and their truth content. Finally, after much prayer and answers, the Bible became clearer to me on such teachings and I rejected these claims. I did not see any witness of what he claimed believers should be able to do, yet he had claimed to have done some of these acts he spoke of. He believed that one day he would be able to go into a hospital and do what the first-century disciples did in healing the sick, and yes, even raising the dead. He also believed that believers should be the richest people on earth, yet he lived a pretty meager existence.I'm not really clear on what the "Word of Faith" movement is. But why does conditional salvation mean it must be you who saves you?
There is always truth in false worldviews because they related to God in some way but I see the "word of Faith" movement it as aberrant Christianity. They twist the gospel message into something it is not. One of its many teachings is that we should be able to do the miracles that Jesus commisioned the early church to do. Another is that we as Christians should be the richest people on earth. Another is the gift of tongues.
Conditional salvation was the message of the Old Covenant. It is the message of all world religions, but one. Conditional salvation is whether or not you can measure up to God's requirements. Christianity is about the One who has, and what He has done for those who will believe.
She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
Again, there is nothing of ourselves in the Gospel message of salvation. It is by His grace that we are saved.
Ephesians 2:8-10 (NASB)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
We, as Christians, cannot boast of what we have done, our good works, before God as merit in His eyes to earn our salvation because we fall short of His perfection and purity.
Two beautiful works give an understanding of this if you are ever interested:
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I don't have a god, you are always wrong.
The mirror is for the first part of your statement. You continually make ad hom statements.
I.e.,
"Not only is your tone insulting but most of what you write is."
Now, what do you see in the mirror?
Created:
-->
@disgusted
I would say your tone was insulting for those who revere GodNot only is your tone insulting but most of what you write is to the billions who don't revere your particular god, just one of many.
Image, meet mirror!
Created:
-->
@Castin
Do you consider your religion's rules to apply to your online behavior here?
Yes, not that I always live up to them. (^8
I try not to take an attack personally and forgive others as I have been forgiven. But I'm also fairly blunt in my discourse. I say what I believe without filtering it enough. With some people, it is hard to have a good dialog with. They make it personal. After reading some of their replies I usually get a sense of whether someone is asking or taking a question seriously or not, and with respect, or not. And a lot of the time there is baggage and emotion that is infused into a belief.
There is also a principle that I often follow and you may think it contradictory but it is not. I use it when someone is not serious quite often in their answers. What I do is I paste their response in satire to highlight the consequence of such thought. Here are the principles:
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.
If you answer someone in a foolish way you become like them. Your answer reflects the same behavior.
Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.
When the worldview is not giving a clear and reasonable answer to a question I satire my answer to highlight its nonsense or inability to make sense of itself. So, in this way, you show the foolishness of what was said by the other person.
For instance, someone says, "There is no truth." I then ask them if that is true. What happens is that they have made a self-refuting statement in that it undermines itself. For the statement to be true it would be false because they are denying what they claim by the statement. They are claiming at least one statement is true, that besides this there is no truth.
When the worldview is not giving a clear and reasonable answer to a question I satire my answer to highlight its nonsense or inability to make sense of itself. So, in this way, you show the foolishness of what was said by the other person.
For instance, someone says, "There is no truth." I then ask them if that is true. What happens is that they have made a self-refuting statement in that it undermines itself. For the statement to be true it would be false because they are denying what they claim by the statement. They are claiming at least one statement is true, that besides this there is no truth.
I'm curious. I mean, we're just typing a bunch of words on a screen. It's not the same as your real life actions. Or talking to someone face to face.
Even though it is not as good as a real-life conversation what we say does to an extent reveal our beliefs and who we are.
2 Corinthians 10:11
11 Let such a person consider this, that what we are in word by letters when absent, such persons we are also in deed when present.
But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
Created:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Any good lawyer would.
Are you a lawyer then?
Created:
-->
@MagicAintReal
I get a kick out of when an atheist who denies God criticizes the same God for being unfair. There seems to be a contradiction there. The same person who denies His existence grants it for the purpose of calling Him names.I get a kick out of when someone without an actual response to posed questions conflates a hypothetical question for insults.
I would say your tone was insulting for those who revere God - i.e., "God's a dick for creating evil and refusing to rid the world of evil even though it's all his fucking fault."
I was noting what you said. But if you want to go further, I thought your opening liner was condescending and contentious also - "For people into old
goddy god,"
(Just my personal opinion if you are interested - no offense intended, just observation)
Besides inferior opinions, do you have any response to my questions?
Pot, meet kettle! You have attacked my opinions as inferior.
If god does exist, how do you tell him apart from the devil?
I go to the source of the revelation and reason it out. Since I am a professing Christian the only God I accept is the Judaeo-Christain God as revealed in Scripture.
***
For people into old goddy god,1. Can you explain how you know when things have been done by god and when things have been done by the devil who has masterfully disguised something to look like it was done by god?
God created humans in His image and likeness. That means they have a volition. They are not robots.
God tests, He does not tempt.
The message of salvation is a good message.
God's message through prophecy gives a good, logical reason to believe that what He says is true.
2. How do you tell the difference between god and the devil in general?
Good v. evil.
God is good, pure and holy. There is no evil in Him.
The devil was not an omniscient being and did not have your goodness as his prime motive, just to please himself.
3. Why is it that god had the ability to create the devil, but has not the ability destroy him?
I believe that God has already judge Satan/the devil. We just witness the aftermath, his influence is still with us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
I see you just initiated an abortion debate on DDO as well.
Since this is not an abortion thread can I ask you a few questions on this particular subject, perhaps through private correspondence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
All of that is interesting and makes sense.To be honest I'm glad to not be an atheist any more because (in the US especially) atheism has developed into this weird cottage industry of smug intellectual kitsch.I agree with this.I usually just identify as “non-religious,” for the same reason.
I read your profile and I'm interested to know if you have always been an atheist or was it your high school education that changed your mind on theism. A weak atheist is more like an agnostic, is it not? According to some Gallup poles, high school and university are the environments that most who once proclaim Christ shuffle off their Christianity. I believe they do so because they were unprepared by the Church environment to meet the challenges of skepticism and were not given enough knowledge of the reasonableness of the Bible to counter secularism and materialism.
Created:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Did God have the foreknowledge that Satan would be evil? I say the bible says yes.God's a dick for creating evil and refusing to rid the world of evil even though it's all his fucking fault.
I get a kick out of when an atheist who denies God criticizes the same God for being unfair. There seems to be a contradiction there. The same person who denies His existence grants it for the purpose of calling Him names.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Would you be willing to examine this from more of a conceptual framework and not such a literal one? I take a more universal approach to spiritual texts but I can make sense of the questions anyways. Some people get queasy though if answers aren't strictly found in the Bible, but then why ask in the first place..1. Can you explain how you know when things have been done by god and when things have been done by the devil who has masterfully disguised something to look like it was done by god?In creation you have two forces (or pairs of forces), opposing forces, and they work together or against one another to enable experience allowing for activity between the two poles or even at two extremes. Without opposing forces which creates contrast and separation there can be no creation. In this realm you have both the negative force and the positive force working and everything in between, and these forces are typically manifested through vessels. Vessels being the souls that inhabit this planet and even those that are foreign to it or outside it which can have influence.While not everything in creation is so black and white it's typically easy to see what is positive and what is negative. More so as it relates to us personally though, obviously.Since the Creator is all encompassing, or rather all of creation comes from out of God and all of creation is within the conscious reality/nature of God everything is a manifestation of that one Source and all created souls and beings become their own mini-creator in the worlds of God. And because of this it is the individual created souls and beings that are mediums for either force.Not everything is either caused by some devil or by God, that is not how creation works. Generally speaking it's the vessels that are the conduits for either the positive forces or the negative.Whether one takes a literal understanding of what the "devil" represents in scripture or a more figurative application, the devil is usually the representative of the negative forces as a whole not just a singular entity. I know the scriptures paint out a picture there is an actual devil running loose causing problems (which there may be) but there is another way of looking at it and understanding how these forces play out in this realm.This is a cause and effect creation which means we are responsible for everything that happens on this planet because all things comes through our decisions and actions and desires, not Gods or the devils. I know that is a bit unorthodox but I'm not a fundamentalist anyways, my beliefs are not limited to one source so keep that in mind.To answer your question more literal, if there was a "devil" masterfully disguising a negative action maybe we wouldn't know, does it really matter? maybe I don't see the point of the question it seems odd. If the devil were to disguise his position maybe we wouldn't know...until the final outcome anyways. But again, this idea that there is some renegade devil that causes all evil is very immature TBH and is not based on reality.2. How do you tell the difference between god and the devil in general?Well as I stated all beings are created from a singular Source and is an expression of that Reality, nothing is outside of that. However, each soul has been given the Divine spark which is the creative abilities and imagination and is free to become what it wants in creation and there are many, many souls and beings on all levels of creation way beyond this one alone. All these beings are channeling their own desires and wishes and they become the conduit of whatever force they want.The question changes when you understand the nature of the soul and how the created worlds operate. Basically there is no distinction between the nature of the create soul and that of the Creator, only the perception the individual takes on in a limited state of conscious awareness.3. Why is it that god had the ability to create the devil, but has not the ability destroy him?Generally speaking souls are eternal once they are individualized. The soul cannot be destroyed even though there is a verse in the Bible that says it can be. That is untrue though, the actual soul cannot be destroyed just like energy cannot be destroyed. The ego can be destroyed and the bodies that souls inhabit in creation can be terminated but the actual soul is eternal. Once it is individualized/created that's it, it is final. That individualized soul gets to become whatever it wants and represent whatever force it wants, that is point of creation. God experiences everything through all channels, all vessels, the Creator has direct access to your channel of consciousness and experiences right through you, right through your own experiences. This is the investment the Creator has in all of this.
I did not have to read the whole response to determine that your ideas are pantheistic, very Buddhism.
Created:
-->
@MagicAintReal
Which leaves us with an extremely embarrassing question for the theist doesn't it?Yeah, so I want to see how a theist wriggles out of this.
So, is the sole aim of your entire post entrapment?
Do you already have all the answers before asking the questions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
- That response by Stephen speaks volumes in my opinion since it does not supply any facts, just attacks the man. Instead, he should lay down how what he claims is done.
Well I certainly don't hold Islam in my heart!The fact is that I'm no expert on Islam and I doubt Stephen is either, so us debating Islam would be an exercise in applied ignorance.
Not only that, but the claims he makes against Christianity is the bone of contention. I showed the lobsided attack on Christianity as opposed to Islam as 26 threads to 1. Although I like that he is interested in the subject what I object to is his misrepresentation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Why don't you start a thread yourself considering you hold this vile faith in your heart. Why don't you list all the pro's that you believe Islam has going for it.
That response by Stephen speaks volumes in my opinion since it does not supply any facts, just attacks the man. Instead, he should lay down how what he claims is done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I will be happy to discuss that barbaric ideology with you.If your understanding of Islam is as bad as your understanding of Christianity there'd be little point.
I'm glad you said that. It shows that what he is saying is identified by others as misunderstood and not just my opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->@Stephen
26 threads and one not included on Isalm (#27), the rest on Christianity.Well if you’re so upset about all the attention Christianity is receiving then start your own thread on Islam. WHY HAVEN’T YOU DONE SO??? I will be happy to discuss that barbaric ideology with you.
I'm not interested in a thread on Islam at this time. I'm interested in how what you say is not accurate to the text or thought of Scripture.
While I do not condone the situation and now that I have been made aware of it I pray for her and her family, but the world is an unjust place for humanity fails to honor and obey God as He is.Well, now you have done all the praying , what have you done about your Christian sisters predicament now that you have been made aware of it some time now?Have you contacted any members of government? What have you said? What have they replied?
You are under the impression that prayer is insufficient. The situation she is in is under God's control. There is a reason she is in this situation and it draws attention to oppressive regimes and double standards. What is more, God weighs the motive of the heart. What is your motive since you question mine? Are you patting yourself on the back at your good deeds? Then you have your reward. Everyone, see how great Stephen is! Look at how he sticks up for a Christian woman at the same time tearing down her Christian faith and mocking her religion!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
That's because I recognise reality and am not afraid of it like you are. Fairy tales supply false hope for the terminally frightened. You're going to die, the end, grow up and accept it. It won't make any difference to the result but at least you will have faced your fears and conquered them or you can stay cowering in the corner telling yourself lies. The lies invented by ignorant, primitive superstitious savages.A habitual LIAR as always.
I'm through with your putdowns and calling me a liar, nothing but attacking the man from one post to another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Read your post, you claim to have asked a question that you didn't ask, that's a lie.
No idea what you are referring to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You'll offer them the lie that they won't die, that's not hope it's obscene delusion.
It is what you call a lie because you disagree with it and have so much invested in your own worldview. Again, all you have to offer is despair, not hope. There was not one word of hope in your response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I quoted your question and it had nothing to do with the lie in your reply.
What lie is that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
What hope does he have to offer? Especially if someone is suffering from brain cancer, and has been given 4-5 months to live, as my friend. What can Gus offer?And other than fairy tales what do you have to offer? The person will be dead.
Not a fairy tale, and more hope than what you have here, which is zero.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
May I ask who Gus is; is it Stephen or Disgusted?I'm fairly sure you were in conversation with disgusted at the time. I don't think i would abbreviate stephen as gus.Gus has a chip on his shoulder, his heart on his sleeve and a bee in his bonnet. He sticks his nose in first, and his foot in straight after. He needs to pull his finger out before his hands get too full for his boots. He certainly has some neck, even if it is up his backside right upto his chin. i'll stop there because i'm running out of body-part metaphors.
That is quite some description. (^8
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
So, if someone did something outrageously horrible and wrong you would not be angry over it?Once again you need to compare your imaginary god with me, but it fails because there is no doubt that I'm better than any genocidal killer.How can you be so unbelievably ignorant enough to even claim that I'm angry with your imaginary god, you people live in a world of fantasy.
How does that answer my question? Why is your subjective view better than any other? Because you arbitrarily decided it or do you have an objective, ultimate, objective, unchanging standard that you can refer me to?
Created:
Posted in:
Thank you for your trouble! I am going to take a week or so and examine your case.Which you will reject at the first available opportunity.
-->@Stephen
Very possibly, but I will consider what he has said. He made some good points regarding the transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures. I know some Bibles translate from the Hebrew and others use the Septuagint. I have to evaluate that. The apostles cite Jesus either quoting or citing from the Septuagint in some places. I have to sort that out. It either means that Jesus saw the value in this translation and being who He is helps them and us to understand the significance or the Septuagint translation was added later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So, if someone did something outrageously horrible and wrong you would not be angry over it? Then why are you angry with God?Despite appearances gus is not angry with God.
May I ask who Gus is; is it Stephen or Disgusted?
He is angry that people worship something that - if it existed - would be odious. He hopes that by showing you that the god you believe in is odious you will see sense and stop your superstitious nonsense altogether.AFAIK that approach has never worked.
What hope does he have to offer? Especially if someone is suffering from brain cancer, and has been given 4-5 months to live, as my friend. What can Gus offer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->@ Stephen
He mocks ChristianityI may appear to be mocking Christianity. But highlighting biblical flaws and biblical contradictions is not mockery. I don't think you know or understand the difference. I will admit to highlighting some very silly and contradictory biblical verses, but this is , after all, a religion forum to discuss religion. I will also admit that some theist here do actually invite "mockery" AND ridicule, for statements not only the bible makes, but for statements they make but never ever back up. You are of the opinion that by you simply quoting unreliable verses in defence of a unreliable verse/s that I have highlighted from the same unreliable source, somehow proves your case and me wrong. it doesn't .
Calling Christians clowns, narcissists, and other derogatory terms mock them.
And he borrows from a worldview that can make sense of morality because it contains such a source when he refers to the Christian Scriptures.Nonsense . It is very rare that I even have to quote any other "worldview" sources than the scriptures themselves. In many cases it takes only seconds to counter one biblical verse with another biblical verse from the same source bible, THAT IS HOW CONTRADICTORY the bible is. The flaws lie with you and the scriptures sunshine. It is not for me to explain away the anomalous, ambiguous, contradictory half stories. Is all I do is highlight what I believe are mistakes, contradiction, and downright lies. It is up to you to scrabble around searching desperately to find a response and or answer., which usually boils down to you and your kind simple changing the scripture and adding a new definition to what is actually written, for which,in my opinion, you would deserve to be "mocked".
You supply the verse, but you twist it into a pretzel with your own private rendering of it. You read into that verse all kinds of things that the greater passage or other passages on the same subject refute.
Although Stephen understands the biblical requirements he fails to live up to them at all times as does every other human being of accountable/reasoning age.Oh stop with your back porch preaching. "The lord" requires nothing of me that my parents required of me: to be as good and as honest that I can be.why would Stephen's "good deeds" outweigh his bad deedsHow do you know that they don't ,you jumped up self serving bible punching narcissist.
I base my response on what the Bible teaches, that there are none who are righteous, not one who understands and does what is right.
Romans 3:9-11 (NASB)
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
or why would he not be guilty of punishment for his wrongs?Guilty of punishment!!? Don't you mean - deserving of punishment?
Too true!
Why would he get away without being judged for all the wrongful actions he has done in his life?Who said I have?. This is where you do actually invite and deserve mockery. You are just like the other religious clowns here. Get over yourself, for god's sake!!!I am responsible for my actions and no one else. And I take responsibility for my actions, I would not let someone else take my punishment for me when it it is I who deserves the punishment that I am sure you wish on me.
Then, finding out God exists would require you to pay for those wrongful actions. You would get to experience that punishment as you have wanted too. It would be understandable why you would deny Him. It justifies doing what you decide without penalty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->@ Stephen
26 threads and one not included on Isalm (#27), the rest on Christianity.Well if you’re so upset about all the attention Christianity is receiving then start your own thread on Islam. WHY HAVEN’T YOU DONE SO??? I will be happy to discuss that barbaric ideology with you.
No, I only posted 26 of those 27 threads. The one I left out (your first) was on Islam. That is my point.
I would say you have a focus, anagenda, which is fine, but the problem, whenever I read one of your threads, is that you take verses out of context or read your own interpretation into the verse.Yes "out of context" seems to be your only argument without having to face the problem head on. it is ALLLLLWAYYYYS someone else who doesn't understand with you lot. It is never EVER you who are at fault is it???
I believe you speak of something you have little understanding of. Whether you like it or not, you do tend to snip Scripture to present only what you want others to see. Sometimes the very next verse counters your quibbles.
You and others keep charging there is no evidence and when I present some for discussion and invite you to test it,you ignore it.No, is all you do is quote other unreliable verses from the same unreliable source which counts for nothing I am afraid.I SUGGEST, THAT YOU GO UP PAGE AND READ CAREFULLY MY RESPONSE TO YOU AT POST #10BETTER STILL, HERE IT IS , READ IT YOU CLOWN>.
More clowns! (^8
Since I have been censored and blocked from responding to Stephen's threads by Stephen I will establish my own thread in response to his allegations since he responds to my posts on these threads, then does not give me the courtesy to respond to his.What are you doing now if not responding, you clown? Congratulations!!!! As you have eventually worked out for yourself, there is absolutely no way that I could stop you responding to me in any way. The block facility on this sight is laughable as you have proven. You can still respond on any given thread in question itself, there is nothing stopping you at all. It just won't show who you are quoting. I have been blocked by many here, but it hasn't stopped me posting on the thread I have been blocked. So stop crying and whining.
The block feature, it seems, is only to prevent you from receiving notification. It prevents me from notifying you.
I am not interested in what you in particular have to stay for many reasons. (1) you never stay on track. (2) you post responses that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. (3) you bombard and clutter up my threads with SO MUCH absolute nonsense that there should be a rule against it.
I present information regarding the Bible that you overlook in your quick and simple evaluation of it. There are so many factors you fail to take into consideration because you don't understand them. That is my point regarding your 26 posts on the Bible. You just don't understand it. You are too superficial in your thinking about it, IMO I think I have demonstrated that.
It is hard to complain about this sort of rude behaviour as one can only flag the post but not give a reason for flagging it. It leaves one with the single option of simply "blocking" you.I could take this post of yours as a personal attack as it , like a few others now, have been directed at me personally, with my name in your title and two of those are authored by >>>>>> YOU<<<<<<<<. I don't mind. I can always ignore , you see, I have been created with a built in Ignore facility that I can switch on or off at any given time I choose to. Brilliant isn't it!!!!! ? I bet you wish were created with one , don't you?But I won't whinge and whine and throw my rattle out of the pram. I have been given warnings twice simply for calling someone stupid, so the only thing that I will complain about is if someone calls me stupid, which is often and so I must be driving the mods up the wall for keeping them on overtime
You just did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I believe Adolph Hitler 'ceased to be' in 1945. Justice was not done and can never be done.
Unless the biblical God exists!
I don't like that's how things are, but - well - that's how it goes. What i cannot do is convince myself that there is a posthumous realm were the ills of this world are put right; where the good are rewarded and the evil punished. Wouldn't it be nice if it was like that!
For those who believe and have been justified by God's grace since otherwise we would have to have our own crimes and misdemeanors accessed.
Everyone makes plans for 'if they on the lottery'. It's a nice way to spend a few minutes fantasising, but in the end you stop daydreaming and go back to saving up for your holiday. imaging that things are put right when your dead is like imaging a lotery win - a nice fantasy.But look around! unless you are very fortunate you can see the world is chaotic and random. The good die young and the bad seem to have all the fun! I don't blame people for really wanting Hitler or jimmy saville to be burning in hell. But that's not how things are. Instead we really need to concentrate on making this world better - because it's the only world.
Better is whose view. That was Hitler's aim too. The big problem with throwing around quantitative moral values is which are objective and true. As a relative, subjective human being how do you arrive at better?
Without an eternal reward on offer the only reason to try to do the right thing is it is the right thing. If that's not enough of a reason for you then peraps it's better you don't wakeup from your daydream.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
There is such a thing as righteous anger. Do you not get angry at injustice and wrongs?There is no such thing as righteous anger for a pure and holy being, that is a lie you tell yourself because it isn't pure and holy, your book is very clear on that point. Your god is far from pure and holy and in support of that you need to compare it to me to make your point and it doesn't pass muster even then. I've never committed genocide.
So, if someone did something outrageously horrible and wrong you would not be angry over it? Then why are you angry with God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I have to ask a dumb question - do you believe Hitler is suffering in hell?I think you probably do, beause otherwise justice would not be served. Am I right?
Yes, I do think that Hitler is in hell if he committed suicide, but it is not for me to judge. God has been merciful to me and I know He is merciful to others. Paul who pails in comparison to Hitler claimed he was the worst of sinners, yet God saved him. Justice is served in one of two ways. Either you serve for your crimes of Someone who loves you takes your punishment and serves it on your behalf. Either way, God's justice is met.
Created:
Posted in:
Stephen wrote post 10 aboveI could take this post of yours as a personal attack as it , like a few others now, have been directed at me personally, with my name in your title and two of those are authored by >>>>>> YOU<<<<<<<<. I don't mind. I can always ignore , you see, I have been created with a built in Ignore facility that I can switch on or off at any given time I choose to. Brilliant isn't it!!!!! ? I bet you wish were created with one , don't you?2. Direct AttackA direct attack is when, outside the context of a discussion on the topic or of behavior in the course of that discussion, someone posts something negative about a specific member. Generalized complaints about generalized behaviors are not direct attacks. But, for example, a thread specifically calling out a member by name, and speaking negatively about them, is a direct attack. Attack threads will be deleted out of hand.
"Generalized complaints about generalized behaviors are not direct attacks."
I wanted my say on your charges and you blocked it. I was censored and not allowed to respond.
What I stated was true. You post thread after thread on negatives about Christianity. There are so many issues it would take a heaping load of time to get to the bottom of them. On the first couple of months during the startup of this forum, how many threads did you post, and most on the negatives of one religion, Christianity? I tried reasoning with you but you were not interested. So I dropped the subject until I noticed post after post that I felt misrepresented Christianity.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/383 - 2 months ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/400 - 2 months ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/360 - 2 months ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/397 - 2 months ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/377 - 2 months ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/413 - 2 months ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/416 - 2 months ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/460 - 2 months ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/475 - 2 months ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/506 - 1 month ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/547 - 1 month ago.
https - 1 month ago.://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/493 - 1 month ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/433 - 2 months ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/518 - 1 month ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/563 - 1 month ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/663 - 1 month ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/764 - 23 days ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/583 - 1 month ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/583 - 1 month ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/811 - 1 month ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/903 - 14 days ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/883 - 7 days ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/926 - 2 days ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/909 - 2 days ago.
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/910 - 4 days ago.
26 threads and one not included on Isalm (#27), the rest on Christianity. I would say you have a focus, an agenda, which is fine, but the problem, whenever I read one of your threads, is that you take verses out of context or read your own interpretation into the verse.
You and others keep charging there is no evidence and when I present some for discussion and invite you to test it, you ignore it.
And when I respond you shut me down and deny me a say.
Then you add ad homs against me instead of attacking my arguments. I.e.,
"Cough , splutter kettle cough, choke, black choke, cough splutter calling, splutter pot, choke splutter cough. Excuse me while I clean up my keyboard!"
"What are you doing now if not responding, you clown?...
I have been blocked by many here, but it hasn't stopped me posting on the thread I have been blocked. So stop crying and whining...I don't think you know or understand the difference...in my opinion, you would deserve to be "mocked"...How do you know that they don't ,you jumped up self serving bible punching narcissist?..This is where you do actually invite and deserve mockery. You are just like the other religious clowns here. Get over yourself, for god's sake!!!
You charge me with doing something that you claim you have also done - posting on a thread where you have been blocked. All I wanted was my chance to respond. I have no animosity to you personally since I don't even know you. Why would I? I have never thought of disallowing someone their say.
And you do the same with others:
--> @MopacIf I answered your questions,But you never do, you absolute clown.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Here is some information om the number of letters and words (remember that what is ascribed to Moses goes beyond the text of the 5 books)
Thank you for your trouble! I am going to take a week or so and examine your case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I found it extremely hard to follow. What is the point you want me to understand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Sorry for the fractured replies -- I am still uncomfortable with this interface:
I have the same difficulties. I have to constantly go and check what is written. For some reason typing too close to other text can alter what has already been said.
What exactly are you referring to as Pharisitical in Matthew 5 & 6? Jesus was citing the Law of Moses.Actually, he cites the Talmud, so if you want to call that the law of Moses, you just verified the oral law. Thanks!
Okay. Or the Talmud copies Him. We look at it differently. Prove the Talmud came first. I accept that the written law was quoted but that Jesus added to it. I accept that the Jews memorized the Law so that they could recite it orally.
Here are a coupleTalmud, Kallah, Chapter 1He who regards a woman with an impure intention is as if he had already had relations with her.Matthew 5:28But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Did you notice how He amended the Law? Jesus cites it, then amends it. "But I say to you..."
Talmud, Gittin 90aThe school of Shammai said: "A man should not divorce his wife unless he finds her guilty of an unseemly thing."Matthew 5:32But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress....Talmud, Baba Bathra 9bRabbi Eleazar said: "A man who gives charity in secret is greater..."Matthew 6:3-4But when you give charity, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your charity may be in secret....But hey...it's all part of the grand Jewish conspiracy to invent a religion after the fact, right?More light reading if you would like...
Sure, I will gladly read it to see where you are coming from. Is there a particular point you want me to gleam or do you feel the whole link speaks of a conspiracy? I will think about it and get back to you once I have researched whatever it is that I feel is suspect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
If you can't produce any then I contend that the codification of the Scriptures as contained in the Christian Bible is more reliable than yours and that it was not us but your Rabbinical scholars who altered the wording.So, yes, the heart of your argument is the claim that all of Judaism is wrong because you claim that your work of fiction can be more authoritative because you have copies of it. Copies of old fiction suddenly become real. It IS a miracle.
I do not doubt your Bible for it is my Bible also. I doubt whether your interpretation is correct. I doubt whether the claims that we altered it is true. Jesus cited the Septuagint. Why would He quote something He knew was not true?
I note, again, that you can't actually point to any altered text and haven't argued any actual content. This delights me no end.
What I point to is that besides the Dead Sea Scrolls your earliest manuscript that you can produce a copy of dates to around 900-1000 CE. Our earliest dates back much earlier. The number of copies is more numerous too. The inaccuracies come from the NT scribes not copying the text with the same degree of care that was instructed of the Hebrew Bible. I will try to establish some of these claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Everything in the Law and Hebrew Bible points towards Jesus Christ! You just don't realize this. Your eyes are closed to this.
13 and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away.
14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil
remains,
because it is removed in Christ.
15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart;
Acts 3:22-26
22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet
22 Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet
like me from your brethren; to
Him you shall give heed to everything
He says to you.
23 And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’24 And likewise, all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and his successors onward, also announced these days. 25 It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God
made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your
seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’
26 For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”
Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19
15. A prophet from among you, from your brothers, like me, the Lord, your God will set up for you; you shall hearken to him.
18. I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.
19. And it will be, that whoever does not hearken to My words that he speaks in My name, I will exact [it] of him.
So, just as you have Moses and the 1st Exodus taking the people from the land of bondage to the Promised Land, so you have Jesus - the Second Moses - taking His people from bondage and slavery in the land to the greater Promised Land, the heavenly country. Just like you listen to Moses, God commands you listen to Jesus. I could point of similarity after similarity between the physical Hebrew Bible and the spiritual significance of the teaching.
“So the offering and the shed blood was a substitute. It was not their blood.But their blood wasn’t demanded. Their repentance and sacrifice were.
Blood represents life. Without blood, there is not life. The animal blood represented their life. Their laying of hands on the animal represented the animal in their place. God, in Eden, told Adam that in the day he ate of the tree of knowledge he would surely die. Death is a curse of the Fall. Death separates us from God.
“I think your charge is misrepresentative of the plain language presented.I think it is duplicitous for you to define “substitution” but cite text which never uses that term.
God provides the idea of substitutionary atonement throughout the Hebrew Bible. Abraham was going to sacrifice his Son of the promise, yet God provided a substitute. God had instructed Abraham to take his son
2 He said, “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.”
13 Then Abraham raised his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns; and Abraham went and
took the ram and offered him up for a burnt offering in the place of his son.
2. And He said, "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you."
13. And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and he saw, and lo! there was a ram, [and] after [that] it was caught in a tree by its horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son.
I.e., it was a substitution for his son that God provided and it is a spiritual picture and truth of God offering His Son as the offering.
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Before I respond, please can you tell me why the text is so corrupted every time I open your posts? I keep finding words running together that I have to correct to make sense of what is being said.
“The OT or Hebrew Bible contains various references to the sacrifice as representing them by their laying of hands on the animal. The animal was used to atone for their sins, thus it was a substitution. It was not their blood that was shed yet it provided the atonement for THEIR sins.Except that manty sacrifices were not for sins that would require the shedding of blood otherwise, so the death of an animal could not substitute for anything. Nothing in any of the text you provide says “substitute”– they say “atonement”. Instead of inserting what you believe, read the text. If I commit a sin, I owe something to repay for that act. My loss of something and my dedication of something are the sacrifice. When the text demands blood, it doesn’t allow animals to replace it (that’s why there is a death penalty –if animal substitution worked, then killing an animal would substitute for killing a criminal. But it doesn’t)
Leviticus 4:1-3 (NASB)
The Law of Sin Offerings
4 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a person sins unintentionally in any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them, 3 if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the Lord a bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed.
Leviticus 4:27-29
27 ‘Now if anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and becomes guilty, 28 if his sin which he has committed is made known to him, then he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without defect, for his sin which he has committed. 29 He shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slay the sin offering at the place of the burnt offering.
The Law of Sin Offerings
4 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a person sins unintentionally in any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them, 3 if the anointed priest sins so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer to the Lord a bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed.
Leviticus 4:27-29
27 ‘Now if anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any of the things which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and becomes guilty, 28 if his sin which he has committed is made known to him, then he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without defect, for his sin which he has committed. 29 He shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and slay the sin offering at the place of the burnt offering.
1. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
2. Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a person sins unintentionally [by committing one] of all the commandments of the Lord, which may not be committed, and he commits [part] of one of them
3. If the anointed kohen sins, bringing guilt to the people, then he shall bring for his sin which he has committed, an unblemished young bull as a sin offering to the Lord.
27. If one person of the people of the land commits a sin unintentionally, by his committing one of the commandments of the Lord which may not be committed, incurring guilt.
28. if his sin that he committed is made known to him, he shall bring his sacrifice: an unblemished female goat, for his sin that he committed.
29. And he shall lean his hand [forcefully] on the head of the sin offering, and he shall slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.
Who sinned - the man or the animal? If it is the man then the man must pay the penalty. His life is required for sin, yet God has permitted in his place a bull or goat to be offered. What does that tell you? What does placing his hands on the head of the bull or goat tell you? It tells me he recognizes the price for sin, a life is required. That life is not his life, but an animal that represents him. The cost is an animal without defect be slaughtered. It is a high price, but not his own life, yet it allows the offerer to have his relationship with God restored.
Do you think God allows sin to go unpunished? He did not in the Garden. What is the price for sin? It is a death. God told Adam that if he was disobedient he would surely die that very day. Do you acknowledge that happened?
Do you think God allows sin to go unpunished? He did not in the Garden. What is the price for sin? It is a death. God told Adam that if he was disobedient he would surely die that very day. Do you acknowledge that happened?
16. And the Lord God commanded man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat.
17. But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."
What does sin do? It separates a man from the presences and relationship with God. Did God say ON THE DAY you eat of it you shall die? So sin brought death.
Your people are sinning. Do they not deserve death? God in His grace and mercy provided a provision for sin. It pointed to a greater sacrifice that would take away sin forever for His people.
[ One Sacrifice of Christ Is Sufficient ] For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.
but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So your worldview does not deal with justice for all. Some get away with the worst atrocities in the history of humanity without receiving any judgment for their crimes. There is nothing fair about that, yet you criticize God for being just and fair in that we are judged for our life lived and what we do with it?I don't think anyone is critiizing God for being fair! I am saying the fairness and justice you think god provides is illusory. Hitler didn't suffer enough for his crimes and many good people die young or poor. The world sucks like that because there is no god to make things better.
You seem to think that all judgment happens in this life with God. The Bible reveals that is not the case. That being the case would explain why you think it is illusionary.
Atheists have a problem answering 'Why bother? you just die anyway.' I've never found a good reason to care about others. But I - and 99% of atheists care anyway. I can explain why humans have evolved empathy, but that expains why we are not all rabid egoists not why we shouldn't be rabid egoists! i'm not sure 'should' can ever be explained totally logically. At least theists can evoke 'enlightened self-interest' -atheists don't even have that option.
That is just the point, you can't find a good reason, or any reason, from your starting point (from where your worldview would have to begin) - a blind, indifferent, amoral universe. Why do you continually manufacture morality and meaning in such a universe? Because you think it makes a difference. What about those who do not?
"Should" is the basis of morality. David Hume identified the is/ought problem. How does an "ought" come from an "is"? How does a prescription arise from a description? The amoral universe is? Why should we find morality and meaning from it? No reason.
You explain a behavior, what is, but how do you get an ought from what is? Why should empathy be the reason in an amoral universe that just is? The universe has no reason. You manufacture the reason and call it empathy. Others do not "value" or feel your sentiment. If killing six million people is beneficial for their likes and dislikes, of the likes of someone in power, then so much for your empathy. It goes out the window. In the big picture from an atheistic worldview, what does it matter? It does not. Yet you go against that by making it matter. You borrow from such a worldview as the Christian one that believes what we do in this life does matter. Before you were born I think you would admit the universe did not care. It will not care when you die. So what does it really matter now? Yet it does so much to you. There is an inconsistency there.
What does it matter is one species survives in the big picture? Nothing if the universe is the sole cause of you. Survival is just what happens. There is no rhyme nor reason to it. It just is.
Sure some people seem born with defective empathy cells in their heads but that is inevitable as every brain is unique. But most humans have a healthy mix of selishness and altruism built in to their brains. Atheists tend to explain human nature using genes, theists prefer to think a god is responsible. The thing is we know that genes exist and how altruism can evolve against naive expectation. The existence of the gods,on the other hand, is infintely debatable.
Defective empathy cells? What makes another persons brain defective and not yours? Nothing. It is just whatever happens. With evolution what control do you have over how you are? You are determined by your genes. What is good or bad about that?
Genes do not explain morality. They just are. Will and reason explain it. Conscious beings explain it. Evolution does not care what you think. It just is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
God is holy and pure - morally perfectNot if he gets angry as you claim in post #24.
There is such a thing as righteous anger. Do you not get angry at injustice and wrongs?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Very interesting and impressive! Thank you.
"How were the new scrolls verified? An authentic "proof text" was always kept in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, against which all other scrolls would be checked. Following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the Sages would periodically perform global checks to weed out any scribal errors."
The temple with the proof text was destroyed in AD 70. The people were dispersed (the Diaspora) across the Roman Empire. What proof do you have that they managed to preserve the text from at least one of the twelve tribes since the "proof text" would have been destroyed?
"How many letters are there in the Torah? 304,805 letters (or approximately 79,000 words)...But how impressive is this compared to other similar documents, such as the Christian Bible? (Both books contain approximately the same number of words.)"
Supposedly, the scribe would count every word.
"David M. Steimle writes this about the Greek New Testament,
NT has only 138,162 words drawn from 5,437 words."
One comparison on the words of the original languages lists just one book - Jeremiah as having 33,002 words. I do not understand how your 79,000 words are enough. Moses (regarding the Pentateuch) is credited with 129,125 words. The article says that both Testaments contain approximately the same amount of words in their original languages. The article credits the Hebrew Bible as containing 77% of the words, which leaves 23% for the NT. Something does not add up.
I have more problems to discuss in your next link when I get time.
What is the earliest recorded copy that you have - dating from when? Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
So, wait, let me get this straight. Is your argument that all of Judaism is a vast conspiracy because Wikipedia tells you so?
No, Wikipedia does not tell me that. It gives evidence of when the earliest manuscripts are recovered with both religions. It is a quick fix.
What I see by reading the two testaments is that 1) God chooses a people to make Himself known to the world through. Through these people, the Messiah will come. He enters into a covenant with these people. It is an if/then covenant. If they obey God will bless them with the promises of the covenant. If they do not then God will punish them with the curses of disobedience. Continually, throughout this covenant, the witness is that the people do not follow God in the prescribed manner. God sends prophets and teachers to them to warn them yet they do not heed His warnings. God judges their disobedience. His Shekhinah glory leaves the temple and it is destroyed. God promises another temple will be destroyed before He sets up His eternal kingdom. This happens in AD 70. Where is the kingdom He promised? You don't recognize the spiritual heavenly kingdom already exists. It has been established. You fail to recognize the promised Messiah has come.
I believe you set up a man-made system yet again to compensate from the destruction in AD 70.
Are you arguing that particular points which I support with text must be wrong because I can't reassure you that the text exists? I note you haven't countered with any real argument about the points I presented, just more questions steeped in ignorance.
All you did was make assertions about the way you understand the Hebraic Scriptures is right. In this session, we have not delved into Scripture itself.
If you wish to do some light reading, start with theseOr don't. Either way works for me.
I will sift through these. What do you want me to draw my attention to? Am I going to be wading through hundreds of pages without knowing?
How about giving me a hint? I could get into a "links war" with you. I could provide links for you to read and you can provide me with links to read, then we don't have to say anything. Or I can provide the gist of the information and let you investigate further if you are interested. Which way would you prefer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
“The fact that I asked was to hear it from you, not because I don't understand this but to prove the point from you that your people are not following the law as they agreed to follow it.No, you just don’t know the law so you suppose that we are to follow it based on your limited understanding.
Or yours perhaps? Do you think you will be justified by following the Law? You have stated you don't always follow it. What about those times?
“Thus, they are not living by the covenant. They continually broke it. Thus God brought the curses/judgments of the Law upon them.Only according to your version of the covenant. It just so happens, it was never the same as our understanding of the covenant so we aren’t bound by your lack of knowledge.
Why did God allow the destruction of the city by the Babylonians? Was that not a judgment? Daniel seemed to think so. Daniel 9:1-26 seems to signify as much. Daniel 9:24-27 also spoke of once again a judgment on the city and temple, per the curses of disobedience. Did that not happen?
“ So, again it is a covenant of works. You do what you can, somewhat unsuccessfully by the sounds of it, because you are bound by the works of the Law, living according to the letter of the Law, yet you can't follow the sacrificial system as prescribed in the OT.You have 2 different statements here. The first is that I am trying to live by the law.
You have admitted you try to live by the law but you are not living according to the stipulations for atoning for your sins that the Law required - animal sacrifice, presented by a Levitical priest. You no longer have a physical temple. Why is that? That is where Israel met before the presence of God. Now, where do they meet? The synagog, right?
Sure, not completely successfully, but I try, and the law makes provisions for how I can improve. The second, about sacrifices, just exemplifies what you don’t understand. Sacrifices were never the end all and be all of Jewish worship, nor were they always necessary.
How does the Law make provisions for you?
No animal sacrifices? So you are no living according to the covenant as stipulated. It required animal sacrifices for the atonement of the nation and also sin offerings for individual sins, depending on what the person could afford.
In fact, they were allowed to be made only at very specific times and with myriad other conditions. We had other systems already in place to supplement and even replace sacrifices when the conditions didn’t allow for them.Here is some light reading https://outreachjudaism.org/god-divorce-israel/
I will take a look at both links. Thank you!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
“ And that is just it. You are a smart guy, but you are in a religious box, IMO.Absolutely true and I’m ok if people want to stay in their own boxes. All I chafe at is people telling me I don’t understand my own box.
First, why are we getting all this running together of words? I have to constantly correct them.
You have a right to believe what you will. Judaism and Christianity have a lot in common. Where we differ we differ in major ways and one of us is definitely wrong. I contend that is you. I base it not on the Hebrew Scriptures but in your interpretation and version of them, as I am sure you do with me. I also attribute it to one of our two religions corrupting the text, of which I point to yours as being the case. I see Judaism as failing to recognize and accept their Messiah and the time of His coming.
“This again is your assumption, yet you do nothing but assert what is and is not without a shred of reasonable evidence in most of your responses.So are you saying that you have a clear understanding of the difference between “messiah” and “messianic concept”? If so, why quote verses about the latter and then ask about the former? Are you saying that you understand the Jewish concept of what makes any messiah (there were many)? Great -- then you won't ask what you asked.
I am saying that there are around 300 Messianic prophecies that we as Christians recognize as relating to Jesus. Many of these you do not. You have a clearer understanding of your Hebrew Bible texts than I do, on where they differ from the OT texts. So I ask you, how many references do you have to the Messiah. I used one source that identified only a handful.
“In the sense that it was a covenant of grace, not works. Do you know what separates Christianity from every other religion? It is a covenant of grace in which God accomplishes what we could not do.Perfect. So what separates you is a covenant which does not exist in the Jewish understanding. That’s fine.
It exists for some Jews, such as Jews for Jesus.
“The Jews demonstrate repeatedly through the OT that they cannot live by the covenant they agreed to with God. The Mosaic Covenant is just such a covenant of works. It is what the human does that puts them right with God. The NT of grace is what God did in Jesus Christ that the Jew nor Gentile could ever do - that is live a perfectly righteous life before God.The Jews demonstrate that the covenant we have, one of laws and ways of living, is a current and constant relationship which we work towards,hoping to get to the point when living by it will become automatic and not astruggle against any evil inclination.
And how successful have you been in keeping the law? In one sense you recognize how holy and pure G-D is, yet in another, you fail to live up to His purity. How does that justify you before God? Will your good deeds outweigh your bad, and what happens if they don't?
“Again, you are speaking Hebrew to me; in other words, you arespeaking above my head with language that is technical to a gentile.I am answering your question with a precise answer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_priestly_descent“Therefore, the priesthoodtoday may not be sanctioned by God. You don't know.What we do know is that the legal system which establishes the priests IS sanctioned by God 9 (Deut 17:9). The system holds so the aspects of the system hold.
I'm not following. God 9? And what does "the system holds so the aspects of the system hold" mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Stephen is more obnoxious to those who go by sola scripture than he is for Orthodox.All we really have to say is, "that isn't what the church teaches."I think his dishonesty is apparent to all, and even people who don't believe the bible can see that he simply throws as much crap against the wall as he can in the hopes that something will stick.Guy found a copy of the skeptics annotated bible or something and fancies himself a scholar.
The problem I see is how he posts thread after thread that all misrepresent the Bible and he can't see where he is being inconsistent with what the passage reads because he only selects what he wants from it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Living up to God's righteousness is not something an accountable human being can doYeah I mean how many of us can have our child offered up to us as a human sacrifice? How many would even ask? If you can't sacrifice your son to yourself you can't be righteous.
The Son volunteered to pay the penalty for sin on behalf of others. He GAVE His life for the sake of others. He was not forced to but He knew what needed to be done to meet God's perfect righteousness and appease the anger of God against sin and unrighteous, hideous acts. He met that righteousness requirement by becoming a human and living as a human before God without sinning. Then He died and took the penalty God required on Himself which is separation from God. He died (death - the penalty for sin, per God) in the place of believers that they may be restored before God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Also, consider those sins of Hitler. Do you think he paid for his wrongful actions, or is there no justice there for his wrongdoing? If there is no justice there then your system of justice sucks.It's difficult to tell what it is you're trying to say here.
Simple. Explain how someone like him would get justice since you are so concerned about it. Oh, sorry, you did. The is no justice.
So your worldview does not deal with justice for all. Some get away with the worst atrocities in the history of humanity without receiving any judgment for their crimes. There is nothing fair about that, yet you criticize God for being just and fair in that we are judged for our life lived and what we do with it?
Do you actually believe Jesus should pay for the sins of Hitler and consider that justice? That makes zero sense.
Sin is wrong. It is wrongful action against another. Your worldview has no ultimate accountability for wrongful action. Some people do not get the just damages for their wrongful acts.
Jesus paid for sin for those who will believe. If Hitler committed suicide it is hard to believe he repented and changed.
Hitler committed suicide rather than be captured, so he paid with his life.
That is not equal justice, for the suffering he caused.
And although that's not nearly enough for the crimes he committed against humanity, there's not much more one can do. In that respect, there was no real justice for Hitlers crimes. Deal with it.
No justice in your worldview. Thus, there is no accountability. Do what you can get away with. Who cares? What does it matter in a pointless, uncaring, indifferent, amoral universe? Not one iota. Yet you live inconsistently within such a universe. You pick apart injustice in God yet there is no ultimate reason why we SHOULD be just or concerned about it in such a universe. If I can survive by exploiting others, such as Kim Jong-un or Hitler, then I get what I want. Why SHOULD I care about you unless you serve my purpose? Again, I bet your worldview is inconsistent with its ultimate source of meaning - there is none. Yet you find it everywhere. It is just made up to serve whatever someone likes to do. In some countries, they kill the unborn because they find it an inconvenience. In others the condemn such acts because they value all human beings. What do you PREFER?
Created: