Discussion in 'Comparative Religion' started by Dinosaur, Jul 5, 2013.
pick any lesson that bible give as u say, i will prove to u the opposite being more right
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Who are you directing your comments towards. Your post is directly after mine and it says you disagree with definition of Atheism which I described correctly, and it seems you did as well.
Maybe practice reading english a bit more before attempting to teach it. I never said Atheism had anything to do with proof of god.
My main claim was that using any religion to attempt to verify or dismiss the concept of god seems ridiculous.
no it is not ridiculous at all, the content or the substance is the point not what u might invent with ur limited head about another above u
religions are what say god, while life say individuality hundred percent
those images and metaphors in all civilizations history that obviously cant b invented by humans draw a picture of god too similar to the one the three theists religions talk about
wt is ridiculous, is to mean anything alone, while anyone is alone literally bc existence is about true individuality, everything is the answer while oneself is never a question when it is present beyond all answers by being a clear positive free sense
so who mean to deny everything matters is what reject true existence for creations wills, knowing that humans cant do so never create any, so it is all for ur god
u should not mean to talk about things positively, all is evil n god the evilest one for sure
wat cant b true would b true evil, so the evilest win while not doing anything but being present
Seeing religious stories as invalid or ridiculous is a good start though. Religions are where the idea comes from in the first place. It was only when facts started to refute the accounts that people rationalized religion by calling it metaphorical, the final stage of this is avoiding orthodox definitions of god in favor of something you can't really pin down (or worship), like cosmic consciousness.
I understand Paul was preaching to the gentiles . If you read carefully. Paul first when he come to a new city he went to the synagogue to read and to discuss about Yashua ,some accepted Yashua as the Messiah and some did not , there was not a clear cut . If you read again in wiki ( were you sited ) it says , up to the year 96 there was no distinction between Christan and Jews
Well this is the mix-up The bible is book of a variety of things there is history of mankind at a period in time , there is prophecy were God is telling that selfish man to correct their attitude or destruction will come upon them. There
is literature and poetry and there is the Jewish law . The common believer accepts the bible is the word of God , I am not sure the Jewish history have much to do with holly, the Jewish law is a law that Jews are supposedly to live by , Laws usually change with time . So I think the bible should not be blamed or taken that mans doing are doing of God if it were so the the admonition of prophets would not be necessary . But as it is written God sppoke through prophets that the society should change its attitude , meaning the Jewish society was a bad society.
the word points others which is meaning to making it worse
another is the lost of being, where being is real
if god meant well, he would said to b real and to look at things superiority n to support the conception of objective rights, this is how individuals could b right themselves with steady feet on the ground
but no, god wanted to make it worse, so prepared people to worse fights for fun by forcing them to face each others in all different ways, which is ridiculous as nothing in fact but negative outcomes since beings are there
even the idea to give to the poor is evil, giving to the poor is forcing poverty as a living fact so indirectly supporting the superiority of rich men for powers in the image of god ways to rule over men
jesus was clear, the meaning is to rule with the father over everything so actually by possessing everyone
the jews wanted to stay individuals, they didnt see in a positive eye to rule with god, they want a god that assume being god like they could assume smthg else down, in that jews were right
God made us biological robots but as it is say he put his spirit into man, and let the spirit go in a free will, but He also give a guidance for mankind ( the way ) Now is up to us to follow or not . So He give to the Jews , sometime they followed and most of the time they did not , We human separate our selves into society , some are more benevolent then others , and in some society there is more poverty then in others . When a society feels strong we try to subdue the week ones and to subdue them into slavery and their land we use for our own benefit . I am sure this kind of life is not dictated by God , but is by the greed of man, but then we blame God.
That's fine. But the most recent addition to the Bible happened about 2000 years ago. If "laws change with time" then pretty much everything in the Bible is outdated - and yet all major Christian religions still teach that it is it inerrant Word of God. Thus a student of religion might conclude "that's contradictory! There is something very wrong here."
Indeed you're making his point here. "Common believers" may have no reason to question the Bible since they don't know it well. Students of religion are more likely to question it because they see the contradictions.
And modern Christian society is not?
You are taking the approach "well the Bible isn't literally accurate; it's more of a series of suggestions in the form of allegories." There's nothing wrong with that approach, and is a quite reasonable approach that gets around the contradictions and evil in the Bible. Most Christians who learn a lot about the Bible and the Church believe something similar.
But again, it speaks to the underlying issue that the more you know about the Bible, the less likely you are to believe it is accurate. Thus the more educated on it someone is, the less likely they are to be a True Believer, or a Born Again, or whatever the most fervent/literal/canonical aspects of the Christian religion call themselves. The less educated someone is, the more likely they are to believe it is 100% accurate.
Which is what Gmilman said. You called him a liar; oddly, you seem to believe the same thing,
Again I think our problem was that the 4 books were put under the same cover and put a seal Holly book , were not all history is holly
"The admonitions are valid for all the times?" So the Bible commands us to kill gays? (Leviticus)
Or are they only valid for their own times? That's fine - but if that's true, then that is DEFINITELY true of the Ten Commandments, for example. They are in the oldest part of the Bible.
I think everyone agrees that the Bible is incomplete. (Nothing about cloning or use of embryonic stem cells, for example.) The question is - of the material that is there, what do you do with it? Are they God's inerrant Word and his Law? Are they just an oral history of a religion with outdated laws that are nowadays mere suggestions? Are they just morality stories that give you a general sense of what to do? Should you ignore the entire Old Testament, or just read it to understand how the Jews lived?
That's one of the problems with using the Bible as a foundation for any religion. It's so outdated that you basically have to ignore some of it. But when you do, then you're ignoring God's word and you can make a case to ignore pretty much anything you want to.
u dont even hear urself, how r u what u say when u say it all
who is that u knowin being spirit of watever and created robot, those things are objective so nothing to say about
but u who says it and say ur god, is the only u
so u see, no u cant u must b too stupid to say waht u said but still
all wat u said if we admit being true, is nothing at all to the present u
which i talk about
then wat i say is the truth and wat u say is the lie
Texas is another country, so what stakes they eat there and who is God and at what time...is up to their leader George W. Bush to decide.
Bible is not a bad philosophy, it is the best philosophy that there is in existence. It's main principles are the moral laws it carries within, not to kill, not to lie, to respect elders, and etc.
Well, there's the problem. There are lots of notes on who to kill, who to rape, how to sell your daughter into slavery etc etc. So you have to say something like "ignore those parts, they are old." Problem is that other people can do the same thing - and thus the Bible becomes like an inkblot, with everyone seeing something different in it. (And at the end of the day, no one's interpretation can be called 100% wrong.)
not to kill and not to lie are not to respect else existence and to b true
while else respect is the normal fact and not a rule of existence, being is exclusively because others are too
that is how reality of persons is more then the persons themselves, and if u touch another urself is necessarily less, it is maths
if u want philosophy to that maths which the world know very well and some rules in common law confirms it
it would say as i said, realize else existence rights positively
again i repeat, killin another is impossible in true reality, the only reason it happens is bc of evil god force one through worse to make it look real
You can't pick and choose. It's either the inerrant word of God or it's not. God has a clearly outlined plan for us or he doesn't. If you were God, would you make sure your message got transcribed accurately? I know I would. If you take it as whole and complete, then it falls flat on it's proverbial face.
Or maybe it's just a bunch of stories that have been handed down through the centuries.
All those "laws" have been stated many times, by many different religions. The Bible has no monopoly on moral guidelines.
In fact with a few exceptions (circumcision, dietary restrictions, the first 3 commandments, and a few more things) all of the stuff anyone would call moral guidelines was pretty much a rehash of the Code of Hammurabi. And it's straight talk. No BS, no sagas, not in the main section where all the laying down of the law takes place. Of course hundreds of years before the New Testament was even a twinkle in a proto-Christian's eye, were the Greek morality plays, which are full of BS (i.e., an actual plot) - but at least the BS is actually deep insightful stuff. How odd that this just makes a work too human to be considered sacred material. The author of God's own book has to be a really bad writer for it to get labeled "Holy Book". :bugeye:
Here is your answer : you don't have to kill nor rape , nor sell your daughter into slavery , because there will not be slavery : DON'T DO TO OTHERS WHAT YOU WOULD NOT LIKE BE DONE TO YOU, AND LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOUR SELF . That is what Yashua was teaching .
In the beginning the Word was with God , the the word become flesh ( Yasua ) and we have to follow the teaching of Yashua. That is all the bible
Separate names with a comma.