 |
| |
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Ethelred - I assume you are referring to verses such as Luke 9 |
You assume wrong. That has nothing to do with the prophecy of the Second Coming so I don't know why you would think that.
Try this one
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Yes it does also say no one shall know the day. That is not the same as saying it won't happen in a general time frame like the span of a generation.
What strikes me as significant is that the very early christians thought the same as I was saying.
So no, the things in Luke don't strike me as significant. Especialy considering as much in the Bible is vague, ambiguous and downright wrong in many places.
For instance what were the last words of Jesus on the cross? If you can't be sure on that how can you be sure about any quotes in the Bible that people are basing their thinking on?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chowlett
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
May 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Matthew and Mark give the same account of Jesus' last words, and do not contradict either Luke or John, since M&M say that Jesus "gave a loud cry", without specifying what the loud cry was. Likewise, the giving of the cheap wine is nowhere contradicted, and is omitted only from Luke's gospel. In John, it is given a slightly different reason than M&M, but the act is the same.
In fact the only contradiction in Jesus' last words is between Luke and John, one of whom says that Jesus said "Father! In your hands I place my spirit!", while the other has "It is finished." (Or, a more accurate translation I'm led to believe, "Paid in full.") Why could he not have said both? It's not as if you have a lot of breath while you're being crucified, one reporter may not have heard what the other did. Besides, John's gospel is often more of the Holy Mystery style than Luke's, which centres more on Jesus' compassion for others and for families, in which case it would make perfect sense for them to report different parts of his final words, according to what struck them most.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chowlett
Matthew and Mark give the same account of Jesus' last words, and do not contradict either Luke or John, since M&M say that Jesus "gave a loud cry", without specifying what the loud cry was. |
I agree on that.
quote:
Likewise, the giving of the cheap wine is nowhere contradicted, and is omitted only from Luke's gospel. In John, it is given a slightly different reason than M&M, but the act is the same. |
Which has nothing to do with the last words.
quote:
In fact the only contradiction in Jesus' last words is between Luke and John, one of whom says that Jesus said "Father! In your hands I place my spirit!", while the other has "It is finished." (Or, a more accurate translation I'm led to believe, "Paid in full.")
|
Which is indeed a contradiction. One too many if the Bible is the word of god as many claim. Of course its not the only contradiction but since this thread deals with Jesus its a relevent one.
Its it is finished or it could be paid in John. 'It is finished' is the single word teleo in the Greek.
5055 teleo {tel-eh'-o}
from 5056; TDNT - 8:57,1161; v
AV - finish 8, fulfil 7, accomplish 4, pay 2, perform 1, expire 1,
misc 3; 26
quote:
Why could he not have said both? |
Because in both version he dies imediatly thereafter. If he said both there would still one of those sentences that was last.
quote:
It's not as if you have a lot of breath while you're being crucified, one reporter may not have heard what the other did. Besides, John's gospel is often more of the Holy Mystery style than Luke's, which centres more on Jesus' compassion for others and for families, in which case it would make perfect sense for them to report different parts of his final words, according to what struck them most. |
If John is to be given the short shrift on its accuracy of fact it shouldn't be used to claim Jesus definitly died on the cross. He has by far the most detail of the crucifiction. If he didn't get the last words right what else is wrong? The spear? I am pretty sure he, or someone else, made that one up. It reeks of an added detail intended to give an impression of versimlitude.
None of what you said changes my point. The two gosples disagree on what Jesus actually said. The both have a last phrase that is clearly last and comprehensible. They don't agree. Since we can't even be sure on something that was so definate how can we assume that ANYTHING else was accurately recorded? Assuming any of it was recorded at all and there is much in the Bible that many scholars think was added in later by others and put in the mouth of Jesus.
If you don't believe it is the word of god there is no special claim of accuracy. It is just the word of men. Just as likely to be wrong or even made up. Which is exactly what I think it was. Excepting of course that even the best historians of the time were lousy historians with a tendency to have axes to grind and not above spinning things to suit their needs. And the apparent authors weren't even historians but prosyletizers.
Of course if you do believe its the word of god there really shouldn't be any contradictions. Unless of course you are assuming a fallible god given to error.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chowlett
|
|
of Candle'Bre
May 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
I agree on that.
|
Good.
quote:
Which has nothing to do with the last words. |
Granted. It just struck me as quite interesting at the time.
quote:
Which is indeed a contradiction. One too many if the Bible is the word of god as many claim. Of course its not the only contradiction but since this thread deals with Jesus its a relevent one. |
I'll answer this when you mention it again further down.
quote:
Its it is finished or it could be paid in John. 'It is finished' is the single word teleo in the Greek.
5055 teleo {tel-eh'-o}
from 5056; TDNT - 8:57,1161; v
AV - finish 8, fulfil 7, accomplish 4, pay 2, perform 1, expire 1,
misc 3; 26 |
Thank you - I assume the numbers refer to the Greek symbols or pronunciations, yes? Anyway, I prefer the "paid" translation, as that is what the cruifixion was for.
quote:
Because in both version he dies imediatly thereafter. If he said both there would still one of those sentences that was last. |
Ok, one of those sentences is last - but does it matter which? If his disciples were standing a little way away, which I believe is stated somewhere, it is entirely possible that he did not speak loudly enough for all of them to hear everything he said. In which case, Luke reports what he heard, John what heheard. John even allows Jesus to bow his head - perhaps Luke was standing closer, didn't understand the "It is finished" line and omitted it, but caught the "Into your hands" bit which John missed by being further away for a line said into the ground? I don't know, but neither do you.
quote:
If John is to be given the short shrift on its accuracy of fact it shouldn't be used to claim Jesus definitly died on the cross. He has by far the most detail of the crucifiction. If he didn't get the last words right what else is wrong? The spear? I am pretty sure he, or someone else, made that one up. It reeks of an added detail intended to give an impression of versimlitude. |
I never gave John short shrift. I merely stated that "It is finished" is more in line with John's style of recounting, while "Father! Into your hands" fits with Luke's angle more closely. And why should the spear not be true? The Romans needed to kill the three "criminals" before the Sabbath, so they broke the legs of the two bandits - thus preventing them from raising themselves enough to breathe. Jesus appeared already dead, so the leg-breaking was not necessary - but just to check, they pierced his side to make sure his blood had separated. It's presumably easier than leg-breaking.
quote:
None of what you said changes my point. The two gosples disagree on what Jesus actually said. The both have a last phrase that is clearly last and comprehensible. They don't agree. Since we can't even be sure on something that was so definate how can we assume that ANYTHING else was accurately recorded? Assuming any of it was recorded at all and there is much in the Bible that many scholars think was added in later by others and put in the mouth of Jesus. |
As I have said, they don't agree, granted - but nor do they disagree. Neither claims at any point "and these were the last words of Christ". They simply say that he said this, then he died. There is a slight implied immediacy, but not a definite statement of finality, nor a given timeframe between the words and death.
quote:
If you don't believe it is the word of god there is no special claim of accuracy. It is just the word of men. Just as likely to be wrong or even made up. Which is exactly what I think it was. Excepting of course that even the best historians of the time were lousy historians with a tendency to have axes to grind and not above spinning things to suit their needs. And the apparent authors weren't even historians but prosyletizers.
Of course if you do believe its the word of god there really shouldn't be any contradictions. Unless of course you are assuming a fallible god given to error. |
I'm neither. The Bible is the inspired word of God, written down by Men with their own political agendas. This warps the meaning in places, and you have to read the bible with an understanding of the politics of the time. But I have yet to be shown a significant contradiction in the basic tenets of the Christian faith.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Thank you - I assume the numbers refer to the Greek symbols or pronunciations, yes? |
Well the 5055 is a Strong's concordance number. I am not sure on the others. I just cut and pasted that. The greek letters were there too but they got lost somehow. They might have been a GIF and not letters.
quote:
Ok, one of those sentences is last - but does it matter which? If his disciples were standing a little way away, which I believe is stated somewhere, it is entirely possible that he did not speak loudly enough for all of them to hear everything he said. |
They are both claimed as last. Only one can be.
As far as I have been able to tell most of the the disciples and ALL the Apostles were in hiding to avoid a similar fate. Luke clearly wasn't there and there is nothing to hint that Mathew, Mark or John were. There is even a lot of doubt about who the actual authors of the the gospels really were.
There is no reason to believe they were eyewitnesses whoever they were.
quote:
And why should the spear not be true? |
It surely would have been mentioned in the others. John was the last gospel added to the Bible and many thought it was bogus. There were a number of other gospels floating around when the Bible was assembled. John wasn't as well thought of as the synoptic gospels.
quote:
The Romans needed to kill the three "criminals" before the Sabbath, so they broke the legs of the two bandits - thus preventing them from raising themselves enough to breathe. Jesus appeared already dead, so the leg-breaking was not necessary - but just to check, they pierced his side to make sure his blood had separated. It's presumably easier than leg-breaking.
|
I don't think the Romans would have cared that much. I can believe them breaking the legs. I don't think they would bother with the spear as a test. It sounds falsified. I have never heard of a blood seperating like that and I looked. Lividity would not explain it and it takes longer in any case.
quote:
As I have said, they don't agree, granted - but nor do they disagree. |
Well they DO disagree. If they are different and they are both last they disagree.
quote:
Neither claims at any point "and these were the last words of Christ". They simply say that he said this, then he died. |
That is as clear as it gets that they are the last words. Dead men tell no tales. I don't think he died by the way. Dead men don't walk around later. That is why I think the spear story is if not wholly manufactured it is at least innacurately reported. For instance the sponge on a stick could have been mistaken for a spear thrust. Jesus must have been covered with blood from the flogging. Thus you get a clear liquid mixed with blood.
quote:
There is a slight implied immediacy, but not a definite statement of finality, nor a given timeframe between the words and death.
|
Slight? Say something and die. Thats not slight.
quote:
I'm neither. The Bible is the inspired word of God, written down by Men with their own political agendas. |
That has little meaning. If god allowed distortion than I don't see any sign of divine guidance.
Bach's music was inspired by his vision of god. That is pretty much the same as you are claiming unless you can show the Bible has a remarkable degree of accuracy and you have just seen it does not.
quote:
But I have yet to be shown a significant contradiction in the basic tenets of the Christian faith. |
Well that is something else entirely. Christian faith was invented over hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. For instance it includes the concept of the Trinity. There is absolutely NO biblical justification for the Trinity. None whatsoever. I can do better than any church has in justifying it since they claim it is a mystery. I have done so and christians have agreed with my intrepetation of it. The only mystery is why it was invented by early christians since it is so clearly unsupported in the Bible.
Want a REAL BIG contradiction?
Has anyone seen the face of god?
I am fond of that one because I discovered it on my own. Whether it counts as a basic tenet of faith depends on what you consider basic. Catholics think Mary was virgin all her life and that is a very basic tenet of Catholicism but its wrong. The only evidence for Jesus outside the Bible that is fully independent of christian claim is in Josephus. He makes one reference to Jesus and its in regards to a man called James the brother of Jesus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
germanos
|
|
behind a firm ****, Rotterdam, NL
Apr 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chowlett
The Bible is the inspired word of God, written down by Men with their own political agendas. This warps the meaning in places, and you have to read the bible with an understanding of the politics of the time. But I have yet to be shown a significant contradiction in the basic tenets of the Christian faith. |
How about the creation of men? Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are completely contradictionary to eachother !
Genesis 1 being the creation of the world, then plants, then animals, and last man and woman simultaniously.
Genesis 2 (v.4-25) starting all over again with just the planet and then starting with Adam and all else following after that, Eva being the last creation.
This is pretty basic i would say.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I direct your attention to the second definition |
You didn't follow the links did you? I did and the actual listing of the books FULLY agrees with what I said. ALL of the Apocroypha were in the Old Testament.
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=Bible
quote:
Various early Christian writings proposed as additions to the New Testament but rejected by the major canons |
Which is not what are called the Aprocrypha with a captial A. That definition would include stuff like the Gnostic writings.
quote:
When I was a boy at Jesuit school we didn't refer to any books accepted by the Roman Catholic Church as apocrypha. |
Of course not. They aren't apocryphal in the Catholic Church. I went to a school with nuns myself. The Sisters of St. Joseph.
Nevertheless if you follow that link you will see which books are called Apocrypha.
Jesuits are worthy of respect but they don't tell the kids all the stuff the protestants say.
Cool, I just noticed I only need a Q instead of the full QUOTE to mark quotes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And I remember quite distinctly that a lot of these apocrypha dealt with Jesus' childhood, while the Gospels are notably short on this subject. |
Well I think most of those were stories made up later. Maybe some was from the Gnostic writings or Thomas or Mary.
Gnostics have Jesus going off with Mary Magdalene and raising kids in Northern Europe. The Rosicrucians come from this stuff. It may even be true. After all why did Jesus and Mary feel responsible for wine at a wedding? The gnositic answer is that it was the wedding of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
I am Agnostic not Gnostic. Just ran across this stuff in other religion discussion on the net. Over at the Maximum PC forum of all places.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kublai-Khan
That is a wrong interpretation.
A few paraghraphs before it says that millions will be saved.
The 144.000 would be like the purest ones, the virgins who choose to follow christ and committed no sins etc etc. |
If this is from Revelations it also says that anyone who believes will live forever in heaven.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
thought I should mention that since some people keep on using this paragraph and sleep very comfortable every knight since this quote proves the bible can't be right. I'm sorry, next night won't be that comfortable |
Sorry to point this out but I don't need that single line that wasn't the one I was talking about to show the Bible is a crock. I have all of Genesis for that.
Now if I was to believe the Genesis was true I might have nightmares. A god that murdered nearly every member of the human race is not something that is comforting. A god that murdered innocent children in Exodus is not my idea of something fit to worship.
I don't understand a god wanting worship anyway. Sure must have a fragile ego. Omni-badtempered. Omni-hypocritical and omipotent is not the stuff that good dreams are made of.
Sleep tight. Just try not think too much about the nonsense in the Bible and it won't disturb you. Much.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:19
|
|
You try to judge God on your own standards.
*IF* there's a god indeed that created this earth and the entire universe, the solar systems and the micro bacteria, do you really think that a pathatic human being like you (or me) has enough knowledge, wisdom and capacities to judge God on what he did, while you have no clue about why he did it and what the concequences are if he would not have done it ?
Simple statement, is it allowed to kill 1 baby to save 1000000 babies ?
Of so, then God pherhaps god did indeed kill 1000 babies during the flood, to save millions of them later.
And whom's fault it is that he had to kill some to save all ?
Indeed, the fault of mankind.
I completely encourage every discussion about God or religion, but I'm growing sick and weary of the stupiditous and arrogant hoax of these days to 'blame god' and use this simplistic theory ass an excuse to be an atheist.
CyberShy
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Faeelin
|
|
Tau Ceti
Oct 2001
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
You try to judge God on your own standards.
*IF* there's a god indeed that created this earth and the entire universe, the solar systems and the micro bacteria, do you really think that a pathatic human being like you (or me) has enough knowledge, wisdom and capacities to judge God on what he did, while you have no clue about why he did it and what the concequences are if he would not have done it ?
Simple statement, is it allowed to kill 1 baby to save 1000000 babies ?
Of so, then God pherhaps god did indeed kill 1000 babies during the flood, to save millions of them later.
And whom's fault it is that he had to kill some to save all ?
Indeed, the fault of mankind.
I completely encourage every discussion about God or religion, but I'm growing sick and weary of the stupiditous and arrogant hoax of these days to 'blame god' and use this simplistic theory ass an excuse to be an atheist.
CyberShy |
As beings made in God's image, we can attempt to understand God. Because, this clearly, refers to conciousness, and mental similarities. God wouldn't have a form.
As an omnipotent, benevolent being, God wouldn't let himself be forced into a situation where he has to kill babies. He might let them die through inaction, but that's not the same as smiting them by the tens of millions.
Matt Groening once expressed my view of God. "If he's done what he's supposed to do correctly, people will not believe he's done anything at all"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
I don't understand a god wanting worship anyway. Sure must have a fragile ego. Omni-badtempered. Omni-hypocritical and omipotent is not the stuff that good dreams are made of.
|
And therein lies the crux of the problem with all theology. Our ancient ancestors saw a world filled with hardship, terror and death. They needed to find comfort in something, and that's where religion came in. It was a means of rationalizing the brutality of the world by saying "It is the will of the gods..."
Any human conception of god is flawed, like the Bible is, because it is putting human rationalization and characteristics unto a supposedly omnipotent being. Humans are so far from omnipotent that we couldn't beging to grasp what such a god is like. So the ancients minimalized gods by putting him into human terms, things we could understand. That meant making him seem petty, jelaous, violent...all the things humans can be.
Priest-kings then used the gods for population control. The god(s) subsequently took on the characteristics of the men who claimed to speak with them, thus exercising absolute power. One such god was Marduk, and Jehovah is most likely a bastardization of him, the Mesopotamian god that came to preeminence over all the others. Certainly, by the very language of the Bible, the first authors believed there were multiple gods (Elohim).
Bottom line: The authors of the Bible didn't understand what it means to be omnipotent any more than you or me, so of course the depiction of a god in it is silly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
You try to judge God on your own standards. |
No I don't. I am pointing out that Jehovah did much evil IF the Bible is true. Since the Bible is so clearly wrong I can't possibly be talking about any remotely possible god.
I can't slander the non-existant. I am only trying to make it clear to you just what you are accepting when you claim Jehova is a real god.
quote:
*IF* there's a god indeed that created this earth and the entire universe, the solar systems and the micro bacteria, do you really think that a pathatic human being like you (or me) has enough knowledge, wisdom and capacities to judge God on what he did, while you have no clue about why he did it and what the concequences are if he would not have done it ? |
Yes I do think that. I am not pathetic. I am fully capable of reading what the Bible says about Jehovah and noticing that he in no way behaved according to his own rules for us. Thats hypocricy and inherently immoral.
quote:
Simple statement, is it allowed to kill 1 baby to save 1000000 babies ? |
Irrelevant. That is not what happened.
quote:
Of so, then God pherhaps god did indeed kill 1000 babies during the flood, to save millions of them later. |
Killed millions of children. None of whom were guilty of anything. None were saved later since they were never born. Only children of Noah were born and he was so low he didn't help save anyone but his family.
Of course the story is a total fabrication.
quote:
And whom's fault it is that he had to kill some to save all ?
Indeed, the fault of mankind. |
Now that IS pathetic. Who created mankind according to the Bible? Jehovah or the gods depending on Genesis 1 or 2. Who was then responsible for how men turned out? Again Jehovah or the gods depending on whether you prefer the version in Chapter 1 or the one in Chapter 2 of Genesis.
quote:
I completely encourage every discussion about God or religion, but I'm growing sick and weary of the stupiditous and arrogant hoax of these days to 'blame god' and use this simplistic theory ass an excuse to be an atheist.
CyberShy |
I am Agnostic. According to christian beliefs Jehovah (or gods) is/are all powerfull and all knowing. Therefor the results of his/their creations are his/their responsiblilty. It is disengenuous to blame me for what the Bible says so clearly about the savage and unjustifiable actions of Jehovah in many parts of the Bible.
Read Exodus and the Noahs Flood parts of Genesis. Not the baby stories you were fed as a kid. The real thing. Jehovah hardened Pharoahs heart in the last and fatal instance. Jehovah REFUSED to let Pharoah send the Israelites out of Egypt. Then Jehovah MURDERED ALL the first born. Even the cattle. There is no justifying that.
Same for Noah. No one gave anyone the opportunity to change their ways. God deliberatly and intentionly killed everyone. Even the land animals for HIS allegedly botched creation of man. Considering the low moral standards of Jehovah there is every reason to believe the alleged corrupt behaviour of people that never existed anyway were falsified to justify an unwarranted genocide.
Sure is good to know that there never was a flood. Makes it very clear that if there is a god its not that psycho in Genesis.
So don't pretend I am judging some god. Jehovah is and was non-existant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
|
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Ethelred: No I don't. I am pointing out that Jehovah did much evil IF the Bible is true. |
he did evil to your standards.
But you don't know what he knows. How can you ever judge him without knowing the complete reasoning behind his actions ?
Besides that, he didn't kill any babies.
He created mankind to be perfectly happy, but mankind wanted more, and refused it to be under his protection.
You can't blame God for what people do !
If I'm walking though the park during the night,
and I see a girl walking there, and I tell her that it's dangerous for a girl to be here, and she yells me away and tells me it's none of my business. And I read next morning in the newspaper that she has been raped, am I to blame ?
And if she has a baby with her, and the same things happens, and I read that she was raped and the baby was killed....... am I to blame ?
Should I have token the baby out of her arms ? Against her will ? Would that be the thing a 'good man' should do ?
The problem is that you raise complicated issues like evil in this world, and you use these issues to prove there is no God, but you refuse to see that these issues are that complicated that we cannot give a fair judgement because we do not know enough about it.
Even if I would give you a satisfying answer, you would still not believe, and come up with another reason to not believe.
But don't fool yourself, you're not using logical reasoning to disprove God. You're more like a little child that tells his mother that it's not fair to have to go to bed that early.
quote:
Yes I do think that. I am not pathetic. |
Of course you are (as I am) compared to a God that created this complicated universe. The good thing is that God doesn't care about that, he still loves us. (like a father loves his baby eventhough the baby doesn't have any knowledge)
But be honest, it would be ridiculous of the baby would start to explain how unfair his father is, and how much wiser the baby is.
quote:
I am fully capable of reading what the Bible says about Jehovah and noticing that he in no way behaved according to his own rules for us. Thats hypocricy and inherently immoral. |
Even someone as pathathic as me does understand the bible better then you do.
You read it, take it out of the context, and formulate your conclusions.
But, I'll be nice: tell me, HOW should god behave ?
Tell me about a God who wants to give his people the freedom to chose in a logical world without being the magic wizzard by stopping earthquakes to hit children and all that.
If you're that smart I'm sure you can tell me what God should've done.
quote:
Irrelevant. That is not what happened. |
how do you know ?
quote:
Killed millions of children. None of whom were guilty of anything. |
You make up that number yourself, and you don't know anything about your 2nd statement.
To me, children are innocent as well, but I have no clue.
Besides that, what you define as 'killing' might be difined by God as "protecting against anything this evil world will ever do to this baby, and getting it home into paradise"
Again, you have no clue about God's reasoning, but you still blame him.
quote:
Of course the story is a total fabrication. |
how do you know ?
(I keep on asking you, since you really seem to be omniscient)
quote:
Now that IS pathetic. Who created mankind according to the Bible? Jehovah or the gods depending on Genesis 1 or 2. Who was then responsible for how men turned out? |
Men. (of course)
I don't see how that is pathatic.
Or do you want to blame God for the mistakes you make ?
That's really the most simplistic view I've ever heard ! (eventhough it's a very common one among agnosts and atheists)
quote:
Again Jehovah or the gods depending on whether you prefer the version in Chapter 1 or the one in Chapter 2 of Genesis. |
I prefer both.
But I'm sure you're completed satisfied that these two chapters show how inconcistent the bible is. 
quote:
Jehovah hardened Pharoahs heart in the last and fatal instance. Jehovah REFUSED to let Pharoah send the Israelites out of Egypt. Then Jehovah MURDERED ALL the first born. Even the cattle. There is no justifying that. |
note: from the 7th plague on pharaoh's hearth was hardened. Not from the first on.
And why is there no justifying for punishing the egypts ?
These people had enslaved the jews for more then hundred years ! These egypts had killed all the boys of the jews.
God gives life to everyone, and he can take it from everyone.
Why can't God take what he has given ?
God never promised ANYBODY eternall life after the fall of mankind.
Every second we live is a gift.
Use it the right way, because one day you will die as well.
What's the difference between dying after 1 year or after 80 years ? What's 79 year compared to eternity ?
Carpe diem tamen memento mori.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
he did evil to your standards.
But you don't know what he knows. How can you ever judge him without knowing the complete reasoning behind his actions ?
Besides that, he didn't kill any babies. |
You haven't read the Bible then. How about you try reading it. In the Flood he killed EVERYONE. There HAD TO BE babies or there wouldn't have been a need as there would be no further humans without babies. You are refusing to accept the truth because even you are beginning to understand just what the Bible really says.
quote:
He created mankind to be perfectly happy, but mankind wanted more, and refused it to be under his protection. |
If Jehovah had done that there wouldn't have been any refusal. In fact there is no mention of such a thing in the Bible. You made it up.
quote:
You can't blame God for what people do ! |
No I won't blame god for the rewrite you just did. Making stuff up won't cause the atrocity to disapear from the Bible.
quote:
If I'm walking though the park during the night,
and I see a girl walking there, and I tell her that it's dangerous for a girl to be here, and she yells me away and tells me it's none of my business. And I read next morning in the newspaper that she has been raped, am I to blame ? |
Which isn't at all whats in the Bible. If you don't like what it says its time to accept the fact that its a crock.
quote:
And if she has a baby with her, and the same things happens, and I read that she was raped and the baby was killed....... am I to blame ? |
You are to blame for this evasion of yours and the falsehood you told when you said infants weren't killed.
quote:
Should I have token the baby out of her arms ? Against her will ? Would that be the thing a 'good man' should do ? |
What does that have to do witht the Flood story. Not a single thing. You are evading the truth. Twist and deny standard practices for Fundamentalists.
quote:
The problem is that you raise complicated issues like evil in this world, and you use these issues to prove there is no God, but you refuse to see that these issues are that complicated that we cannot give a fair judgement because we do not know enough about it. |
The problem is that I did no such thing. I was very clear in my explanation that I was pointing these things out ONLY to show the true horror of the story. The storys are false and I showed why they are false. There never was a flood. There would be evidence for it and there isn't any. The Egyptians never noticed drowning but you have clearly evaded this obvious truth.
quote:
Even if I would give you a satisfying answer, you would still not believe, and come up with another reason to not believe.
But don't fool yourself, you're not using logical reasoning to disprove God. You're more like a little child that tells his mother that it's not fair to have to go to bed that early. |
You can't make evidence apear out of thin air. That is why you have evaded the reality of what I said and gone off on this completly irrelevant tangent. You fear dealing with the truth of my actual words so you make up this nonsense.
quote:
Of course you are (as I am) compared to a God that created this complicated universe. The good thing is that God doesn't care about that, he still loves us. (like a father loves his baby eventhough the baby doesn't have any knowledge) |
Jehovah was not even close to a god of love. That is what I was showing you and that is why you have deliberatly evaded what I actually said.
quote:
But be honest, it would be ridiculous of the baby would start to explain how unfair his father is, and how much wiser the baby is. |
I am not a baby and neither are you. I am being honest and you are evading reality.
quote:
Even someone as pathathic as me does understand the bible better then you do.
You read it, take it out of the context, and formulate your conclusions. |
You don't understand it or you wouldn't say Jehohvah did not kill infants. He killed EVERY first born in Egypt. That MUST include infants. It cannot do otherwise.
quote:
But, I'll be nice: tell me, HOW should god behave ? |
Not like a pathological murderer. Not lie all the time. Not create imperfect creature and then claim to be perfect. Not be the psycho in Genesis.
quote:
Tell me about a God who wants to give his people the freedom to chose in a logical world without being the magic wizzard by stopping earthquakes to hit children and all that. |
Keep his hands of us and don't murder us with floods would be a good start.
Thats a straw man you have created to avoid what I said. I am not going to tell you what a god should be when I see no evidence to support the existance of any kind of god. Certainly no evidence to support the one the Bible.
quote:
If you're that smart I'm sure you can tell me what God should've done. |
I did. Not murder innocents. I thought that was pretty darn clear but its obvious you have tightly shuttered your mind.
Its not what the Bible claims happened. You invented it yourself and you know that. If you want to claim it again then YOU support your claim. Show where it is in the Bible. You said it, you prove it.
Of course you can't because you are making things up. Rewriting the Bible when confronted the horrors in it is par for the course.
quote:
You make up that number yourself, and you don't know anything about your 2nd statement.
To me, children are innocent as well, but I have no clue. |
Well you have one thing right. You don't have a clue. The Flood is alleged to have happened 4400 years ago. There were millions of people living then. Hundreds of thousand along the Nile alone.
Since you have now admitted that children are innocent it follows that innocents were killed if there actually had been a flood. Considering that the Egyptians weren't drowned 4400 years ago its clear the Bible is wrong about the flood. Which is good for any possible creator but it does show Jehovah as an impossible one.
quote:
Besides that, what you define as 'killing' might be difined by God as "protecting against anything this evil world will ever do to this baby, and getting it home into paradise" |
Its still murder. Fixing the problem would clearly be within the capaicity of an all-powerfull and all-knowing god. What you are claiming would make life on Earth a completely wrong thing for Jehovah to do in the first place. Just start us all in paradise and then we wouldn't have to deal with the harsh reality of the world this allegedly perfect created.
quote:
Again, you have no clue about God's reasoning, but you still blame him. |
Jehovahs reasoning is in the Bible. Perhaps you should read it sometime. You also consistently ignore the fact that I can't blame something that doesn't exist.
quote:
how do you know ?
(I keep on asking you, since you really seem to be omniscient)
|
By looking at the world. Omniscience is not needed to see that the world was not covered by miles of water 4400 years ago. I only have to look at Egypt to see this. Funny how you keep ignoring what I said about that. Of course active ignorance is an important trait in fundamentalism.
quote:
Men. (of course)
I don't see how that is pathatic. |
Men are as god created us. In his image. You don't see much of anything do you?
quote:
Or do you want to blame God for the mistakes you make ? |
I don't blame non-exist things for anything. Its the Bible that says Jehovah created us. Out of clay. If Jehovah isn't responsible for how he creates things then we sure aren't responsible for what we do.
quote:
That's really the most simplistic view I've ever heard ! (eventhough it's a very common one among agnosts and atheists)
|
That is the most blatant evasion I have seen in a while. There is nothing simplistic in saying that creator is responsible for its creations.
quote:
I prefer both.
But I'm sure you're completed satisfied that these two chapters show how inconcistent the bible is. |
They do indeed show it to be inconsistant. Your eyes must have rolled back inside your head not to see this. Its not exactly the only contradiction in the Bible though. Lots more.
quote:
note: from the 7th plague on pharaoh's hearth was hardened. Not from the first on. |
I didn't say a thing about the first. Indeed the Bible is VERY clear that Jehovah did the final hardening.
quote:
Exd 10:24 And Pharaoh called unto Moses, and said, Go ye, serve the LORD; only let your flocks and your herds be stayed: let your little ones also go with you. |
Pharoah agreeing to let them go. Then Moses says what else he wants to take with them.
quote:
Exd 10:27 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go. |
Jehovah stopping Pharoah from letting them go. Jehovahs next act was to kill all the first born.
You really should read the Bible someday. Stop taking it out of context like Fundamentalists love to do.
quote:
And why is there no justifying for punishing the egypts ?
These people had enslaved the jews for more then hundred years ! These egypts had killed all the boys of the jews. |
There is no justice in murdering innocents. There is no justice in punishing people because Jehovah STOPPED Pharoah from letting the Israelites go.
quote:
God gives life to everyone, and he can take it from everyone.
Why can't God take what he has given ? |
Well since he didn't give life thats a moot point. However its hypocritical to tell us not to murder than do exactly that.
quote:
God never promised ANYBODY eternall life after the fall of mankind.
Every second we live is a gift. |
Only if the Bible is true and the Flood shows it isn't. Its not much of gift anyway. We weren't given a choice if the Bible is true. We are what Jehovah created if the Bible is true. We can only do what he created us to do if the Bible is true. Even then Jehovah intervenes and forces us to break the Commandmants if the stories in the Bible are true. He stopped Pharoah from letting the Jews go if the Bible is true. He told the Israelites to kill everything in some towns, including infants, if the Bible is true.
quote:
Use it the right way, because one day you will die as well.
What's the difference between dying after 1 year or after 80 years ? What's 79 year compared to eternity ?
Carpe diem tamen memento mori. |
There is no eternity unless the Bible AND a lot non biblical christian ideas are true. However the Flood alone shows the Bible is not true.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kit
|
|
a small island off the coast of venusia
May 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
Can I just ask, Why are you tryin to prove if theres a god or not?
If someone belives there is. Why try to prove to them otherwise? The fact that there is a god obvously gives them comfort and security and a purpose in life. Would you take a child and prove to them that Santa or the tooth fairy doesn't exist? Because its kind of the same thing
If they dont belive its there buisness maybe they dont know anything about it or maybe they know and made the choice not to belive thats there own choice and stick by it, fair do's But whats the point of convincing those who do that there is no god?
Is it because you are uncertain in your own decision and need to prove to someone else have them change their mind for you to be sure of your own? Or do you just have way to much time on your hands!
Look I hope I havent insulted you That was not my intention I just wanted to clear this up for my own curiosity
I do belive I struggle with alot of it but I still want to belive I dont care that a bunch of guys wrote things down differently I just like the feeling I get when I sing in church or see something that could not have got there by accident like the stars
I pray to this god and hope that your wrong and he is there because if you were right then I have been very wrong about alot of things in this life not just my faith
~Kit
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chowlett
|
|
of Candle'Bre
May 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
We care because Christianity (of the fundamentalist variety) teaches that a mass-murderer is the epitome of "goodness". |
I'm sorry? Modern fundamentalist Christians advocating mass murder? I'd be inclined to think these people aren't actually Christians. Thou Shalt Not Kill is a fairly central and important point to most Christians. Generally, we try to convert people now rather than slaughter them...
quote:
We care because the Bible teaches that nonconformists like us should be stoned to death (and not just us: "we are all sinners deserving of death"). |
Erm, yes? We are all sinners deserving of death. It doesn't say (at least I don't think it does - can you give a reference to that verse?) that we should go out and kill them. Indeed, the death is not so much a physical, but a spiritual death. Everyone will die physically. Everyone should die spiritually, since all have sinned. The point is that Jesus did that for us.
quote:
We care because the Bible teaches that the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others is noble and just. |
Erm, where? With the exception of Christ? Which should be viewed as a special case, since he was God, he knew what he was doing, he did it willingly, and he was truly innocent. In previous ages, Jews had to sacrifice a young goat or a lamb to take the punishment of their sins, since as sinners they were deserving of death. Jesus, as a truly sinless human, could be the lamb, the scapegoat, for all of humanity.
quote:
We care because certain Christians are currently the greatest threat to science education in the Western world. |
Yes, certain Christians. Not most. Most Christians are open to scientific change. Good grief, even that bastion of conservatism and inertia the Vatican has accepted that the Big Bang theory is a plausible means of creation. Besides, AFAIK, the Bible does not teach that science is evil and should be avoided at all costs.
quote:
We care because the Bible teaches people not to think. That bit contradicts science, history, common sense? Don't worry: science, history and common sense are wrong. This bit upsets your sense of moral decency? Don't worry, just toss your moral decency into this basket and let US tell you what's right and wrong. |
Wrong. The Bible requires you to think good and hard. That bit contradicts science and common sense? Firstly, check the history, Ok. But if it matches history - you have to seek an explanation. If it doesn't, you have to realise - as I posted above - the bible is written by men interpreting God. It's going to be slanted somewhat. And I'd like to see a passage (genuinely - I don't know my bible half as well as I should, and I'd like to see where you're arguing from) which gives a moral tenet of Christian faith which contradicts a "common sense" idea of moral decency. And anyway - where does your sense of moral decency come from? Why shouldn't you do whatever it takes to get ahead in the world? And yes, I know about your famous quote that's in someone's signature.
It's late, I need sleep, so that's all for now.
Oh, and btw - Hi Kirsty.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
I am not going to comment too much in this thread, but from just browsing over it I just want to comment on the archetypal "arguement from evil" some posters are presenting here. Essentially what some of the posters are are saying is If God does exist, why is there so much evil in the world? God is all-knowing, and of perfect morals, right? Why does he allow evil to exist?
The problem of evil is certainly the greatest obstacle to belief in the existence of God for most people, I presume even yourself Ethel ol chum. However, let’s look first at the intellectual problem of evil. There are two versions of this problem: first, the logical problem of evil and, secondly, the probabilistic problem of evil.
Logical Version
According to the logical problem of evil, it is logically impossible for God and evil to coexist. If God exists, then evil cannot exist. If evil exists, then God cannot exist. Since evil exists, it follows that God does not exist.
However, the problem with this argument is that there is no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. After all, there is no explicit contradiction between them. And if the atheist means that there is some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be presupposing some hidden premises to bring out this implicit contradiction. But the problem is that no philosopher has been able to identify such premises. Therefore, the problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil.
But more than that, we can actually prove that God and evil are logically compatible. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And therefore I am pleased to report to you that it is widely recognized among contemporary philosophers that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved. The coexistence of God and evil is logically possible.
probabilistic Version
But we’re not out of the woods yet, for we now confront the probabilistic problem of evil. According to this version of the problem, the coexistence of God and evil is logically possible, but nevertheless it is highly improbable. The extent and depth of evil in the world are so great that it is improbable that God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting it. Therefore, given the evil in the world, it is improbable that God exists. This is a much more powerful argument. Thus, I will address this matter in particular detail.
In response to this version of the problem of evil, I want to make three points.
1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has a morally sufficient reason for the evils that occur: As finite persons, we’re limited in space, time, intelligence, and insight, but the omniscient and sovereign God, who sees the end from the beginning, providentially orders history so that His purposes are ultimately achieved through human free decisions. In order to achieve His ends, God may have to put up with evils along the way, which humans freely perpetrate. Evils which appear pointless to us within our limited framework may be seen to be justly permitted within God’s wider framework. A brutal murder of an innocent man, for example, could produce a sort of ripple effect throughout history such that God’s morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or perhaps in another land. When you think of God’s providence over the whole of history, then I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a particular evil. We’re just not in a good position to assess such probabilities.
2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the coexistence of God and evil. In so doing, these doctrines decrease any improbability of God’s existence thought to issue from the existence of evil. What are some of these doctrines? Let me mention four.
A. The chief purpose of life is not happiness per se, but the knowledge of God. One reason the problem of evil seems so puzzling is that we tend to think that the goal of human life is happiness in this world. But on the Christian view this is false. Man’s end is not happiness as such, but the knowledge of God--which in the end will bring true and everlasting human fulfillment. Many evils occur in life which seem utterly pointless with respect to producing human happiness, but they may not be unjustified with respect to producing the knowledge of God. Innocent human suffering provides an occasion for deeper dependency and trust in God, either on the part of the sufferer or perhaps those around him. Whether God’s purpose is achieved through our suffering all depends on how we freely respond.
B. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and his purpose.Rather than submit to and worship God, people rebel against God and go their own way and so find themselves alienated from God, morally guilty before Him, and groping in spiritual darkness, pursuing false gods of their own making. The terrible human evils in the world are testimony to man’s depravity in this state of alienation from God. The Christian isn’t surprised at the human evils in the world. On the contrary, he expects them! The Bible says that God has given mankind over to the sin it has chosen. He does not interfere to stop it but lets human depravity run its course. This only serves to heighten mankind’s moral responsibility before God as well as our wickedness and our need of forgiveness and moral cleansing.
C. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life.In the Christian view, this life is not all there is. Jesus promised eternal life to all who place their trust in him as Savior and Lord. In the afterlife God will reward those who have borne their suffering in courage and trust with an eternal life of unspeakable joy. The apostle Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, lived a life of incredible suffering, and yet he wrote: "We do not lose heart. For this slight, momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. For we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal" (II Cor. 4. 16-18). Paul imagines a scale, as it were, in which the sufferings of this life are placed on one side, while on the other side is placed the glory which God will bestow upon His children in heaven. The weight of glory is so great that the sufferings of this life literally cannot even be compared to it! Moreover, the longer we spend in eternity, the more the sufferings of this life shrink toward an infinitesimal moment. And that’s why Paul could refer to them as a "slight" and "momentary" affliction. Despite what he suffered, his sufferings were simply overwhelmed by the ocean of divine eternity and joy which God lavishes upon those who trust him.
D. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.To know God, the source of infinite goodness and love, is an incomparable good--the fulfillment of human existence. The sufferings of this life cannot even be compared to it. Thus, the person who knows God--no matter what he suffers, no matter how awful his pain--can still say, "God is good to me" simply in virtue of the fact that he knows God, an incommensurable good and has been granted existence.
These four Christian doctrines greatly reduce any improbability which evil would seem to throw upon the existence of God.
However, all this takes us to the emotional problem of evil. I think that most people who reject God because of the evil in the world don’t do so because of intellectual difficulties. Rather, it’s an emotional problem: they just don’t like a God who permits suffering, and therefore they want nothing to do with Him. Theirs is simply an atheism of rejection. Am I right on this Ethel et al? Does the Christian faith have something to say to these people?
It certainly does! It tells us that God is not a distant Creator or an impersonal Ground of Being, but a loving Father Who shares our sufferings and hurts with us. Professor Plantinga has written,
As the Christian sees things, God does not stand idly by, cooling observing the suffering of his creatures. He enters into and shares our suffering. He endures the anguish of seeing his Son, the second Person of the Trinity, consigned to the bitterly cruel and shameful death of the cross. . . Christ was prepared to endure the agonies of hell itself . . . in order to overcome sin and death and the evils that afflict our world and to confer on us a life more glorious than we can imagine. . . he was prepared to suffer on our behalf, to accept suffering of which we can form no conception.{6}
So, paradoxically, even though the problem of evil is the greatest objection to the existence of God, at the end of the day, God is the only solution to the problem of what we, as human beings objectively interpret as evil.
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. (most atheists will agree on this point)
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, objective values exist. (Some things are really evil.)
4. Therefore, God exists.
And thus evil only calls into question God's existence on a superficial level. On a deeper philosophical level evil actually demonstrates the existence of God because evil, as such, could not exist without God.
Thanks for hearing me outl . 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kit
Can I just ask, Why are you tryin to prove if theres a god or not?
|
I am not trying to do that. I am however ON TOPIC. I didn't start this thread. The question about believing THIS TIME implies there was a previous time. There wasn't it if the Bible is wrong.
I am only dealing with the Biblical god. No other god need apply. To this thread anyway.
quote:
If someone belives there is. Why try to prove to them otherwise? |
Why not? They even come to my door. Just last week. He didn't like me telling him the Flood never happened. I didn't start the thread and I didn't invite him.
I ask Scientologists about Diuretics and is L. Ron Hubbard REALLY dead THIS time. So don't feel like I am just picking on christians.
quote:
The fact that there is a god |
Its not a fact.
quote:
obvously gives them comfort and security and a purpose in life. Would you take a child and prove to them that Santa or the tooth fairy doesn't exist? Because its kind of the same thing |
I would never tell a child such nonsense. However I wouldn't take it on myself to tell someone elses child the truth, not deliberatly anyway. YOU and the others here however ARE NOT children.
I figured out that Santa wasn't real around five or six I think. Not sure. I just remember sitting in the kitchen and asking my mother "Santas not real is he mom?". Well neither is much that is in the Bible.
quote:
If they dont belive its there buisness maybe they dont know anything about it or maybe they know and made the choice not to belive thats there own choice and stick by it, fair do's But whats the point of convincing those who do that there is no god?
|
Then they will quit trying to force their religion into the US school system. Besides they, like you, entered this thread voluntarily. If you can't handle a legitamate discussion by people that CHOSE to enter the discussion than you can go elsewhere.
quote:
Is it because you are uncertain in your own decision and need to prove to someone else have them change their mind for you to be sure of your own? Or do you just have way to much time on your hands! |
Its discussion thread. You are the one wasting time trying to stop others from discussing this freely.
quote:
Look I hope I havent insulted you That was not my intention I just wanted to clear this up for my own curiosity |
You aren't really asking what I am doing since that it is quite obvious what that some one started the thread to discuss these things. Someone else. So it looks to me like you are trying to get me to stop saying what I think. You can't insult me by acting censorious. That only insults you.
quote:
I do belive I struggle with alot of it but I still want to belive I dont care that a bunch of guys wrote things down differently I just like the feeling I get when I sing in church or see something that could not have got there by accident like the stars |
You don't have to go to church to sing. You don't even have to believe to sing. A friend of mine is an Atheist and he used to sing in an Anglican choir. We called him a closet christian.
The stars didn't get there by accident. They got there by physical laws. None of which needed a magic god that allegedly created a flood 4400 years ago just to wipe out his botched creations that were allegedly created perfectly in the first place. If you can manage to put that sort of contradiction in your mind you go right ahead and believe that sort of nonsense. I just point it out the obvious impossibility of it being true.
I can lead a fundamentalist to reality but I can't make him accept it.
quote:
I pray to this god and hope that your wrong and he is there because if you were right then I have been very wrong about alot of things in this life not just my faith
~Kit |
You can't pray to a god if it doesn't exist. Don't base your life on fantasy. Unless of course you can make living on it like say J. R. R. Tolkien did.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chowlett
I'm sorry? Modern fundamentalist Christians advocating mass murder? |
He said christianity and he didn't say it tells US to do it. The Bible tells about believers and god engaging in mass murder. One of the mass murder was the Flood. Another is in Exodus. There a number of others in the Bible. Since it is claimed that god is good then it follows that mass murder is good.
quote:
Erm, yes? We are all sinners deserving of death. |
Nonsense. I don't deserve death for some imagined sin. The only sin worthy of death is murder. Which Jehovah did a lot of according to the Bible.
quote:
It doesn't say (at least I don't think it does - can you give a reference to that verse?) that we should go out and kill them. |
Well I am supposed to be stoned for saying Jehovah. You too.
I am not going to hunt up the verse. I am not that interested since I find Genesis and Exodus is more than enough to show the Bible both wrong and immoral.
quote:
Indeed, the death is not so much a physical, but a spiritual death. Everyone will die physically. Everyone should die spiritually, since all have sinned. The point is that Jesus did that for us. |
Only if the Bible is true of course. It isn't.
quote:
Erm, where? With the exception of Christ? |
How about all those first born in Egypt? The young ones were guilty of nothing.
Did you actually read the Bible? You sure seem to short on clues about the many innocents that were murdered in it. Jehovah once demanded that the Israelites kill everything in a city. Children and animals as well as adults.
quote:
Which should be viewed as a special case, since he was God, he knew what he was doing, he did it willingly, and he was truly innocent. In previous ages, Jews had to sacrifice a young goat or a lamb to take the punishment of their sins, since as sinners they were deserving of death. Jesus, as a truly sinless human, could be the lamb, the scapegoat, for all of humanity. |
Or a truely perfect and omnipotent god could have just done what we humans are asked to do. Forgive. The whole idea of a sacrifice to propitiate a perfect god makes no sense at all.
Makes sense with infantile and dangerous gods that are raging psychopaths though.
quote:
Yes, certain Christians. Not most. Most Christians are open to scientific change. Good grief, even that bastion of conservatism and inertia the Vatican has accepted that the Big Bang theory is a plausible means of creation. Besides, AFAIK, the Bible does not teach that science is evil and should be avoided at all costs. |
It has a flood that never happened and the Bible is clear that we must believe it all.
quote:
Wrong. The Bible requires you to think good and hard. That bit contradicts science and common sense? Firstly, check the history, Ok. |
Did that.
quote:
But if it matches history - you have to seek an explanation. |
Well it doesn't match history. Whats your explanation for that?
quote:
If it doesn't, you have to realise - as I posted above - the bible is written by men interpreting God. It's going to be slanted somewhat. |
Than it is just the word of fallible men no more worthy of respect than any other book. I take Darwin and Einstein over a bunch of ignorant nomads from thousands of years ago.
quote:
And I'd like to see a passage (genuinely - I don't know my bible half as well as I should, and I'd like to see where you're arguing from) which gives a moral tenet of Christian faith which contradicts a "common sense" idea of moral decency. |
The Flood. Exodus. Killing rape victims for not protesting enough. Killing people for saying Jehovah instead Yaweh. Want more? Most of those have been mentioned allready so its not like you aren't allready of the falseness of your statement.
Maybe your one of those anti-Old Testament Christians. There was a movement in the early history of christianity to not accept the Old Testament as Holy.
quote:
And anyway - where does your sense of moral decency come from? Why shouldn't you do whatever it takes to get ahead in the world? And yes, I know about your famous quote that's in someone's signature. |
Mine didn't come from the Bible. Its comes from:
Treat others as you would have them treat you.
AKA the Golden Rule and not the exclusive property of christians. If I went on the Bible I would think its OK to conquer and kill others. There is a lot that in the Old Testament and Jehovah demanded some of it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-05-2002 07:27
|