Atheists what is your proof?

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

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

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

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

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

I tell you what I believe is more likely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Agreed.

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

OK; not hearing a problem so far...

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

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

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

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

Not sure what you are getting at with this verse.

Or this one.

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

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

See my comment above re: lineages.

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

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

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

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

I never said the NT WAS inspired by God.

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

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

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with everything you just said.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Like how allows = condones?

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

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

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

 

SolusCado,

Yes I have, here: from post 821

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

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

Do you really think semantics gamesmanship is making a point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome and I am being geniune.

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

 

Wow. Ok so we should not question the bible.

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

How are we being arrogant in asking these questions Solus ?

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

Are you suggesting that is off limits ?

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

He is intelligent so I go with the former.

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The other gods.

lawl.

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

 

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

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

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