What you want to know about Christ.

SO lets get this straight. After initially disagreeing weith the Bible you have now decided that after all God did make Pharoah refuse to let the Israelites go. However you excuse this by saying that God knew with absolute certainty that the Pharoah would have done it anyway.Of course, the whole point of doing it is that God did NOT know that the Pharoah would keep the Israelites in Egypt and God WANTED the Pharoah to keep the Israelites in Egypt. If the Pharoah was aboslutely certain to do what God wanted anyway there's no point in God doing it. Are you really suggesting that God is too stupid to realise that ?

Huh? Whoa! Wait! How does this follow? Even if God created us, how does that give him any rights over us?

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

You really should read the Bible sometime if you're going to have discussions about it.In addition to the aforementioned Flood that killed everything on Earth:Genesis 19:24

quote:

---

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

---

Exodus 12:29

quote:

---

And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

---

The entire book of Leviticus, nearly, is devoted to instructing the Hebrews on how to make blood sacrifices. I literally can't quote it all - it's almost the entire book.The core fucking tenet of Christianity is that God sacrificed himself as Jesus to himself on the Cross. At minimum that is human sacrifice. At most it's also batshit insane.This took me 5 minutes. There's a lot more. A LOT more. The Hebrews in the Bible commit genocide after genocide in the name of God, with his supposed approval (killing all of the males and taking the women and female children as their "wives," for example. Can you say rape?).The god described in the Bible is literally one of the most bloodthirsty characters ever devised by the human imagination. Even Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined have nothing on the deity that supposedly killed every living thing on the planet except for a family with some animals on a boat. Thanks for admitting that he IS a bloodthirsty monster. After all, you wouldn't have to justify his mass murder this way if he wasn't in fact, a mass murderer. And by that same logic any woman should be able to kill their child - any time, at any age, for no reason, becasue she gave the child life, and so "has the right to take it away."Apparently your version of god is a sadistic little kid frying ants with a magnifying glass. While this certainly fits with the Biblical descriptions, the scary part is that you think that's just fine. "Do it or I'll make your life fucking miserable forever" is not a choice. That's what we call "force." If God knew Pharoah would let the Hebrews go, why would he harden Pharoah's heart so that he'd make them stay when the freaking goal was to give them freedom? If God knew that Pharoah would make the Hebrews stay, why would God need to harden Pharoah's heart? Are you dense? In this story, God specifically sets Pharoah up, using the Jedi Mind Trick to get him to say what God wants, so that God can rain plagues on Egypt and kill all of the firstborn children to flex his power muscle. He forced Pharoah to do what he wanted, then punished all of Egypt for Pharoah doing what God forced him to do, so that he could be "glorified."There's that kid with the magnifying glass again. "Look how great I am! Look what I can do!"

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

quote:

---

Yes I can see how some people don't get this. I have talked quite a bit about this in the thread 'The Bible was NOT man made, it was Godly made'. Please read what I say in that, then ask me again if you have further queries.

---

Nothing that I saw in that other thread addresses my point.Over there, you were attempting to argue that because all the books of the bible agree, they must be true. This idea was easily shot down by your opponents, whom you eventually stopped responding to.What you have said here is that you believe the bible to be the truth because the bible says so. In fact, you say that this is the most important reason you believe it is true.The Bahavigad Gita must be true, because it says so right inside!

gen, I would like to know if Jesus was genetically diploid or haploid. Since he was a real man in the flesh, and also the son of God, this raises a question about his genes, or more specifically about his his alleles. Jesus got one set of alleles (genes) from his mother, of course. But did he get a matching set from his father, which is usually the case, or did he not have a second set of alleles. If not, Jesus was haploid. But if Jesus was diploid then his second set of alleles would have had to come from God, his true father, according to the Bible. This would mean, then, that God has a genome.What would be terribly interesting to science would be to know what alleles God used to make Jesus. But maybe God made Jesus haploid, wherein the only source of his alleles was his mother. This, then, would create another problem: If Jesus was a real man then where did he get his Y chromosome? His mother could not give him one, since she had none to give. So, if he actually was haploid then he'd have to be a woman.Just curious: Are there any references in the Bible to Jesus's circumcision?”HM

Certainly. Luke 2:21

quote:

---

21On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.

---

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

and this is why eyewitness testimony is bupkis.

but the scripture says that the law is natural and all are without excuse. anyone who has or has not heard the law is still held by it.

Ron Wyatt supposedly found a sample of Jesus' blood. You might be interested in this thread.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place”
-- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

and this is why eyewitness testimony is bupkis.

---

That's assuming the authors actually witnessed the events. John, for example, was written something like 300 years later, IIRC.It's also assuming that the events in question actually happened.It is also great evidence that myth changes as the needs of the religion change.John is very different in character than the other three Gospels. All the talk of a literal, in-the-flesh, very, very soon Second Coming present in the others is downplayed in John. Jesus's gift to us was changed into a spiritual, symbolic rebirth rather than the military victory of the rest of the Gospels.That's why the timing of the crucifiction was changed. Jesus becomes the symbolic "sacrificial Passover lamb" for all of humanity.

not really. lots of people even now claim to have witnessed things when they didn't, whether the thing happened or not. historical people don't lie any more than modern people. quite. i think that's a reach.

Matthew: 70-100 CE
Mark: 65-75 CE
Luke: 60-100 CE
John: 90-100 CEBut it is a good question as to whether any of the authors were actual eye-witnesses. Matthew and Luke were probably based in part on Mark, and all three may have made significant use of the hypothetical Q gospel. As you point out, John is way out there -- anyone reading it is sure to notice that it belongs to a completely different early Christian tradition, probably proto-Gnostic.Of course, there is nothing that says eye-witnesses can't make use of other documents in recounting their story. But it is still a good question as to how much, if any, of the events in the gospels actually took place.

---

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

Gen thanks for the reply. However note the above is a classic equivocation fallacy. That is you are using a word with different meanings but confusing or glossing over the different meanings in order to justify some point.http://adamkemp.newsvine.com/...faith-faith-and-equivocationFaith that the world is spherical and faith is Jesus are not the same thing.The use of such a equivocation is a clue of confused muddled thinking.Also no one is telling you that your belief in the geometry of the planet earth will decide heavenly eternal bliss or eternal damnation and suffering.

---

However note: My question was deeper than that.Why would the creator make it so critically important to have faith and believe in something "what we do not see"? Why would a creator give us eyes and a brain but require that we not use them. It all sounds more like a gullibility contest.This requirement of belief or "faith" is employing the same psychological motivation that perpetuates chain letters.

quote:

---

i think that's a reach.

---

How so?It's a fairly mainstream scholarly analysis.

Thank you, TC.So, he was indeed a real man. Very interesting! Because in that case he'd have to have a Y chromosome, which would mean that he would have to be genetically diploid. This also would mean that he would have had to carry God's alleles around in every one of his nucleated cells.TC, it would be vastly interesting to science and commerce to learn the exact genetic make up of God's alleles. If they could know that they could sell a trillion products for a bazillion dollars by installing God alleles into them. Who could top that? And I'm sure someone would want to patent God's alleles, of course, at least before the churches do.If Jesus had been circumcised in the flesh, as the Bible says, then wouldn't he have to necessarily carry God's genes and God's Y chromosome in his body? Or should my question more properly be laid to rest on the religious principle of miracles attributed to God? In other words, don't question it.If it's the latter, TC, I will disappointed.”HM