|
Author
|
Topic: What makes so many people hate God
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
okay john u win
Then you are retracting?
quote:
i still think your wrong but i'm moving on to another point
No, guess not.
quote:
i gave you a perfectly sound and logical explanation you just don't want to hear it.
And I told you what the problems are with your explaination. Now it is your turn to correct those problems, demonstrate that they are not problems after all, or retract. Look, Funkie, I am not insisting on any odd standards of evidence or interpretion. Turn your attentions to any other religious text and you will find yourself asking the same questions I am asking of you, and using the same standards of evidence to boot.
quote:
I understand it now and that's what i was going for.
You were going for making something up that supports your faith yet has no basis, not even in the Bible-- like that part about Mary's father-in-law? This is called sticking your head in the sand. You haven't addressed the points I made.
quote:
your argument isn't sound either in the case of zelophehad however, the geneolgy is recorded through the daughters at that point to insure their inheritance in the promise land as this man had no son so drop that point already.
Notice that the law is that if a man with no sons dies then the daughters inheret his possessions. Can you show me how this effects the case we are discussing?
quote:
The apostles accounts are different because they are written by differenet people
Ummm.... no kidding, Funkmaster.
quote:
John, why on earth would there be 4 epistles if they were all the same that would be pretty redundant don't you think?
Yes, but don't you think things like the genealogy of GODMADEFLESH ought to be redundant? Don't you think things that are factual ought to be redundant?
quote:
You prove to me that it was against Lukes culture to record down the mothers line.
What? You are making the claim that Luke is recording down his mother's line, and thus far you have not supported that argument. In fact, what I see in the very verses you cite is in direct contradiction to your claim.
quote:
Prove it or drop it.
You prove it. Maybe you don't understand something. You can't simply make up something that solves the problem. You have to present a case for that solution. Otherwise, you might as well argue that it true because "I say so"
quote:
It's not a condradiction or a fabrication it's a solidification.
Excuse me? Then show me where it says anything other than Jesus>Joseph>...>David. Show me where it says that Luke is tracing through Mary, or her father-in-law. This shouldn't be asking for much. Then we can start working on what happened those fourteen generations.
quote:
You seem to want so badly to believe the bible wrong.
Classic retort from desperation. retortus ad desperatum What you fail to see is that I can be easily convinced. All you need do is produce evidence.
quote:
I am sure glad to know the truth about this personally and it has solidified even more my faith.
I am happy your are happy in your fantasy.
quote:
Working on the "two" Genesis account.
Please return to this topic first. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 11-12-2002]
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.9
|
funkmasterfreaky writes:
Okay, John, u win. I still think you're wrong but I'm moving on to another point. I gave you a perfectly sound and logical explanation, you just don't want to hear it. |
But people are always providing perfectly sound and logical explanations that are wrong. For example: What's that, honey? Why am I coming home at 1 in the morning with liquor on my breath and lipstick on my collar? Well, you see, when we finished up at work we were so happy to be done early that we went out for a drink, and as I was leaving I accidentally collided with a woman coming in, and I guess that's where the lipstick came from. It could have happened that way - did it? What you have to do is support your scenario with evidence. The works of imperfect men are themselves imperfect, and the Bible seems full of the types of errors men usually make. You contention is that the Bible is not the words of men but the inerrant Word of God almighty. Is it? Since God chooses not to testify we must use indirect evidence. You and John are currently focusing on just one facet of indirect evidence: error or lack thereof in the Bible. Your position appears to be that if you can present a "sound and logical explanation" providing an interpretation that removes the appearance of error that your work is done. But in reality your work has only begun, for now you must present evidence supporting your contention. Evidence that I'd like to see would be: - That it was actually a custom among gentiles in Luke's time to provide matrilineal genealogies.
- That it was also the custom to begin a matrilineal genealogy with the father-in-law's name without stating that that's what was being done.
- That it was also the custom to mention only men in a matrilineal genealogy.
- That the Matthew/Luke genealogies "are in sync from David down to Abraham", despite the disagreement from Hezron to Amminadab, and the disagreement of Sala (Luke) and Salmon (Matthew).
--Percy
|
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 93 of 225 (22376)
11-12-2002 4:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 92 by Percy
11-12-2002 4:27 PM
|
|
okay guys i won't drop it i'll find your answers. However John please do not mock my beliefs. like your fantasy comment. that wasn't nesecary. i know i made a mistake earlier and said some stupid things but i am trying to debate peaceably and i don't enjoy mockery. so can we call it even and drop the sarcasim.  ------------------ saved by grace
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 92 by Percy, posted 11-12-2002 4:27 PM | | Percy has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 94 by John, posted 11-12-2002 4:42 PM | | funkmasterfreaky has replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
okay guys i won't drop it i'll find your answers. However John please do not mock my beliefs. like your fantasy comment. that wasn't nesecary. i know i made a mistake earlier and said some stupid things but i am trying to debate peaceably and i don't enjoy mockery. so can we call it even and drop the sarcasim.
Fine. Drop the "I know the truth and you don't cause you just don't want to see it" crap. It is arrogant and profoundly irritating. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 95 of 225 (22389)
11-12-2002 6:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 94 by John
11-12-2002 4:42 PM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
okay guys i won't drop it i'll find your answers. However John please do not mock my beliefs. like your fantasy comment. that wasn't nesecary. i know i made a mistake earlier and said some stupid things but i am trying to debate peaceably and i don't enjoy mockery. so can we call it even and drop the sarcasim.
Fine. Drop the "I know the truth and you don't cause you just don't want to see it" crap. It is arrogant and profoundly irritating.
okay sorry it wasn't my intent to come across like that i'll watch myself. I don't think any kind of debate allows that sort of thing anyway. Guys what was the Greek word for father in law? ------------------ saved by grace
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by John, posted 11-12-2002 4:42 PM | | John has not replied |
|
forgiven
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 96 of 225 (22395)
11-12-2002 7:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 94 by John
11-12-2002 4:42 PM
|
|
now now... i read every post and didn't sense a tone of "i know the truth and you don't, you ignorant savage"... i see what appears to be a man seeking both to answer why his beliefs are as they are and to question why the beliefs of others differ... there has to be considered the respective audiences of the two letters... to whom did luke write, to whom did matthew write?... what was matthew's purpose, what was luke's?... one weakness most christians have in common is understanding 'audience relevance' when they either study or defend their faith... it's *very* important to understand that, for example, when paul wrote galatians he was addressing real people in a real place with real problems, and these people had different problems from those in, for example, corinth... so it's important to know the audience of matthew and luke and what they intended to convey matthew wrote to jews... they were his audience... the jews lived under the law... this law includes much more than the 10 commandments... for example, it was necessary for matthew to show Jesus' *right* to the Messiahship, a right reserved for the lineage of david... Jesus' line thru joseph satisfied the law (assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus was born of a virgin) since he was joseph's son by adoption, with all the legal rights of his "father"... this was necessary if the jew's were to accept who Jesus was... thus matthew's account was meant to show the jews that yes, Jesus is indeed the Messiah for whom we have waited and about whom it has been prophesized... luke cared not about the law (rightly so *ducking any slings and arrows from christians*)... luke knew paul (halleluja!!) and knew the law had nothing whatsoever to do with the *nature* of Christ... his audience was gentile, and his aim was to show the geneology thru *biological* lines... Jesus Christ had a legal right to the throne of david thru joseph, he had a biological right thru mary... Jesus Christ was the Messiah, is the Messiah... even tho the kingdom of Christ is not of this earth, the man who would hold the reigns of that kingdom had to satisfy the demands placed on him by God, as spoken thru his prophets... both geneologies were necessary to show Jesus as that man... i know the area of faith is a touchy subject, but it always has been... God gave us the ability to question and reason, heck he questions and reasons... 'come let us reason together' is a good thing, among reasonable people... but 'reason' presupposes the ability to entertain concepts we might not like nor embrace... for this reason i think jumping to the defense of specific doctrines or parts of the bible can be both productive and fruitless... it seems much better to ask a person, a non-believer, to examine her own concious, to look at creation around her, to ask whether or not there might be some truth to this God thing... then go from there to, ok what *if* it's true? what if it's a fact that God created us in a world where, if left alone, we'd have no hope of ever knowing him? would an omnibenevolent God do this? if not, how did he plan on rescuing us from what appears to be a trap of his own devising? it's a small step from there to knowing what christians should know... that there's nothing we *can* do about it... how do we escape then? if it's true that we're all sinners, if it's true that God can't abide sin, if it's true that sin will never be in his presence, what can we do? nada, zip, zilch... so ... who can? aha!! *someone* has to take our place, *someone* has to atone for our sins, *someone* has to bear the brunt of God's hatred for sin... who better than God himself? after all, it was *HIS* plan that got us here, right? so that's what he did... and he gave us the choice of simply trusting in him... trusting in his solution to the problem that being born with free will (an inherent attribute of God, and of us) posed... so that's where we are... choosing whether or not to believe that God provided us with a way out of this mess... all it takes is faith.. it's not unreasonable for a person to ask for proof... it is unreasonable for a person to deny the existence of such proof... come, let us reason together...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by John, posted 11-12-2002 4:42 PM | | John has replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 97 of 225 (22426)
11-13-2002 1:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by forgiven
11-12-2002 7:18 PM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
now now... i read every post and didn't sense a tone of "i know the truth and you don't, you ignorant savage"... i see what appears to be a man seeking both to answer why his beliefs are as they are and to question why the beliefs of others differ...
And how would you interpret brushing off an argument with "you just don't want to hear it"? Or "i still think your wrong but i'm moving on to another point"? Or "You seem to want so badly to believe the bible wrong. I am sure glad to know the truth about this personally"? You see, all of these things are insults in thin disguise. Think about it. The implications are that I am willfully ignorant, willfully self-deceived, irrational, and blinded by some adolescent rage against the Bible. After the third or fourth score of times through the drill my patience has been worn out. Debate virtually any Christian and it will come to this. I am not angry with Funkie, but this kind of dodge is BS.
quote:
there has to be considered the respective audiences of the two letters...
Basically you reiterate Funkie's argument and provide no supporting evidence for it.
quote:
it seems much better to ask a person, a non-believer, to examine her own concious, to look at creation around her, to ask whether or not there might be some truth to this God thing...
Because, of course, we've never thought about this stuff. What is this? Pompous Christian week?
quote:
then go from there to, ok what *if* it's true? what if it's a fact that God created us in a world where, if left alone, we'd have no hope of ever knowing him? would an omnibenevolent God do this? if not, how did he plan on rescuing us from what appears to be a trap of his own devising?
What if? Are you joking? ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by forgiven, posted 11-12-2002 7:18 PM | | forgiven has replied |
|
no2creation
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 98 of 225 (22434)
11-13-2002 2:38 AM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by forgiven
11-12-2002 7:18 PM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
so that's what he did... and he gave us the choice of simply trusting in him... trusting in his solution to the problem that being born with free will (an inherent attribute of God, and of us) posed... so that's where we are... choosing whether or not to believe that God provided us with a way out of this mess... all it takes is faith.. it's not unreasonable for a person to ask for proof... it is unreasonable for a person to deny the existence of such proof... come, let us reason together...
It is not a 'CHOICE' that you can make to just 'BELIEVE'. I have tried to come to the same belief(s) that many Catholics/Christians alike have. I need a certain level of evidence, that for me, is simply not there. I am NOT blind, ignorant or arrogant of the evidence either. I simply don't believe. When I read the bible, it reads ficticous to me, it just doesn't register as a rational, reasonable, TRUE account of something that has happened. When presented with information for the possible existence of a God, I do not come to the same conclusion that someone else would. Lets say there was a God, why would he judge me based on something not in my control (believing)? Kind Regards.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by forgiven, posted 11-12-2002 7:18 PM | | forgiven has replied |
|
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 99 of 225 (22435)
11-13-2002 2:40 AM
|
Reply to: Message 97 by John
11-13-2002 1:29 AM
|
|
Okay john i apologized; i'm sorry. I do see your point. I'll be more careful from here on.
quote:
Yes, but don't you think things like the genealogy of GODMADEFLESH ought to be redundant? Don't you think that the factual ought to be redundant?
No i don't think the facts need to be redundant. Just complete and accurate. Which i think tracing both sides makes it a more complete overall geneology. As well as establishing that he is by all rights heir to the line of King David.
quote:
You were going for making something up that supports your faith yet has no basis even in the Bible--like that part about Mary's father-in-law?
I've read both accounts; compared and studied the differences, and come up with a feasible conclusion; the word son used in the greek (luke 3) is huios. which according to strong's concordance translates as; *huios, "hweeos"; appar. a primary word; "a son" (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immed. remote or fig. kinship: child, foal, son *(taken from strong's concordance) in the Greek original translation the evidence of luke's account being down the line of mary is more obvious as the wording of the greek clearly lists (eg.)"the son of" Matthat" for every name except joseph's . Which would indicate to those who would read the greek, that luke was indeed tracing mary's line even though joseph's name is listed. "The ommission of the article puts the name (Joseph)outside of the genealogical series" (as quoted in Robertson, 1922, p 261) This is kind of an off point but i found it interesting to note that the account of the virgin birth in Matt 1:18-25 seems to be from the perspective of joseph. Even more interesting, in Lukes account(luke 1:26-56) he gives the perspective of mary. You would think it rather counter-productive for Matt and Luke to falsify the genealogy of Jesus as the jews had public records that were not destroyed until the Romans' seige and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Why would they write a blatant lie that could easily be uncovered at the time? One more thing in passing it wasn't every day that there was a virgin birth to record. Do you think there was a procedure in place for recording the genealogy of a virgin birth? So I do not believe this explanation to be that unreasonable. I cannot with the evidence i have so far prove it to be 100% true. I do believe it to be a strong case with valid points. So now tell me about the missing generations so i don't waste posts with things you already know. As for Genesis same thing tell me what's wrong. Show me the descrepencies.. I look forward to discussing that as well though i know this one is not over. I have not forgotten the other questions you posed to me either; the flood and egypt. So i guess that's all i got for now. ------------------ saved by grace [This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 11-13-2002] [This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 11-13-2002]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 97 by John, posted 11-13-2002 1:29 AM | | John has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 101 by John, posted 11-13-2002 3:41 AM | | funkmasterfreaky has replied |
|
graedek
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by no2creation:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
so that's what he did... and he gave us the choice of simply trusting in him... trusting in his solution to the problem that being born with free will (an inherent attribute of God, and of us) posed... so that's where we are... choosing whether or not to believe that God provided us with a way out of this mess... all it takes is faith.. it's not unreasonable for a person to ask for proof... it is unreasonable for a person to deny the existence of such proof... come, let us reason together...
It is not a 'CHOICE' that you can make to just 'BELIEVE'. I have tried to come to the same belief(s) that many Catholics/Christians alike have. I need a certain level of evidence, that for me, is simply not there. I am NOT blind, ignorant or arrogant of the evidence either. I simply don't believe. When I read the bible, it reads ficticous to me, it just doesn't register as a rational, reasonable, TRUE account of something that has happened. When presented with information for the possible existence of a God, I do not come to the same conclusion that someone else would. Lets say there was a God, why would he judge me based on something not in my control (believing)? Kind Regards.
check this out....interesting stuff (80 pages but worth the read) Revolution Against Evolution – A Revolution of the Love of God ------------------ *******sleeper********
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 98 by no2creation, posted 11-13-2002 2:38 AM | | no2creation has not replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Okay john i apologized; i'm sorry. I do see your point. I'll be more careful from here on.
I appreciate that.
quote:
I've read both accounts; compared and studied the differences, and come up with a feasible conclusion;
I am not convinced. Your argument rests on a convoluted reading of the Greek, IMHO. Have a read:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://torah.freeyellow.com/page35.html Notice in the above that there is an especially interesting point made about God cursing Jesus's line. Also notice that there is a direct reply, made by David Blank Professor of Classic Languages, to the bulk of your argument (about halfway down the page)
quote:
You would think it rather counter-productive for Matt and Luke to falsify the genealogy of Jesus as the jews had public records that were not destroyed until the Romans' seige and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Why would they write a blatant lie that could easily be uncovered at the time?
You seem to be confused as to exactly when the Gospels were written. Yet another topic for later.
quote:
So now tell me about the missing generations so i don't waste posts with things you already know.
Matthew lists 28 generations from David to Jesus. Luke lists 41. That is 13 generations in Luke that are not in Matthew. Its seems a bit odd that starting from one man-- David-- two lineages branch off. One covers 28 generations, the other 41, in the same span of time. You have to assume that all of the Matthew line mate late -- ~25; while all of the Luke line mate young-- ~17. It stretches probability.
quote:
As for Genesis same thing tell me what's wrong. Show me the descrepencies..
For one, the first account is of a seven day creation ( or six days and a rest) the second account is of the DAY -- singular-- of creation. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 102 of 225 (22447)
11-13-2002 5:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by John
11-13-2002 3:41 AM
|
|
Okay the Genesis thing you'll have to be more specific. I assume we're talking about Gen 1 & 2. Seemed to me (note this is on a brief study) that chapter two ends the account of creation at verse 3. Now it stops regroups and would seem to me, to give a more in depth description of the 5th day of creation. Where the first chapter is just an outline. And then it pulls kind of like a pulp fiction and goes back to the 5th day. I know it can't be that simple but i'll get it when you pick me to shreds. ------------------ saved by grace
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by John, posted 11-13-2002 3:41 AM | | John has not replied |
|
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 103 of 225 (22448)
11-13-2002 5:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by John
11-13-2002 3:41 AM
|
|
John if you want to make a point don't give me a link i won't look at it. If you want me to acknowlege something put it in your own words and post it. C'mon I could sit here and copy paste all day. I did read that one though john ------------------ saved by grace [This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 11-13-2002]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by John, posted 11-13-2002 3:41 AM | | John has replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
John if you want to make a point don't give me a link i won't look at it.
I'm sorry. Do you have a problem with information? Is it too much work to research? Even when I find the source for you? If so, you are not worth the bother.
quote:
If you want me to acknowlege something put it in your own words and post it.
Excuse me? It is only accurate if I paraphrase? You have got to be joking. Information is information. Why write an essay here when the issue has been dealt with elsewhere? This within limits of course. In this case, the issue was dealt with by a Professor of Classic Languages. And in fact, I had already made my case and was addressing your argument about the syntax of ancient Greek. Grow up. In short, stop whining.
quote:
C'mon I could sit here and copy paste all day.
You sure could. Biblical apologetics is second only to porn on the web, doesn't make any of it true however. IMHO, defenders of the faith have a frightening disregard for evidence, accuracy and .... well... honesty.
quote:
I did read that one though john
So you are withdrawing your claim then? ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 11-13-2002]
|
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 105 of 225 (22462)
11-13-2002 9:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by John
11-13-2002 3:41 AM
|
|
Alright as far as the curse of Jeconias, descendant of joseph that states as such; Jer 22 "Thus saith the Lord God, write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah." See closely the curse states "no man of his seed". Now Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph and not the seed of Joseph. If Jesus had been concieved in the normal way yes this could be a valid point. (well if Jesus was concieved that way i wouldn't argue this stuff with you) To me this further shows where there must be another link to David giving more reason for Luke to record the line of Mary. Okay john now what did i miss that was too easy. lol ------------------ saved by grace
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by John, posted 11-13-2002 3:41 AM | | John has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 109 by John, posted 11-13-2002 10:09 AM | | funkmasterfreaky has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2