Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
45 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Robert Smith (3 members, 42 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 877,936 Year: 9,684/23,288 Month: 699/1,544 Week: 91/322 Day: 11/80 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity
Phage0070
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 196 of 477 (551863)
03-24-2010 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Pauline
03-24-2010 5:20 PM


Dr. Sing writes:

What sane person would incorporate such an abstract concept like faith when he can just make a awfully cute, elaborately decked platinum idol and pray to it everyday. If it were up to you, would you make your religion faith based? I never would. Faith is extremely, extremely, counter-intuitive a concept.

It isn't the intuitiveness of the concept, it is its durability you should consider. If you faithfully worship that platinum idol and expect it to protect you from harm, then you can objectively determine if you are fulfilling the works supposedly required for a specific result. If you are just supposed to have faith that it will save you from harm, when it fails the obvious defense is that your faith wasn't "true".

Think about the origin of the religion itself, supposing it were not created by someone actually expecting salvation but rather by a con artist looking for an ironclad scam. He claims an immaterial god doing undetectable things, for motives that are impossible to understand, through magical methods, and requires devotion hopeless to verify.

Such a position is guarded in every possible way against disproof, as the claimant can never be accused of not living up to their own standards. Assessing the plausibility of a religion based on the suitability of its tenants to an adherent presupposes that it is true. A more useful measure would be to assess the plausibility of a religion based on its suitability to a dishonest claimant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Pauline, posted 03-24-2010 5:20 PM Pauline has not yet responded

Sparcz1978
Junior Member (Idle past 3670 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 03-27-2010


Message 197 of 477 (552230)
03-27-2010 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by slevesque
02-23-2010 12:39 AM


There are many verse in the Old Testament that God Kill People that against him. He want to show that He is God and no other gods before him or after him.

God did not kill babies in the old testament,

God test Abraham's Faith and Love to Him...God commands Abraham to offer Isaac... Genesis 22:1-19

God Kill all People in Sodoma & Gomora, because they are all sinners, They did not obey God. they worship Idols and Images, did not make sex to a woman, but they make it in their same sex. Genesis 19:1-33

God Show His Power to the Egyptians for the freedom of the Hebrews in the house of bondage. God makes many miracles and evidence that He is God, the most powerful and there is no other than Him, Egyptian kill babies because the Hebrews become more in population than Egyptians and they become slaves, Egyptians Worship images and did not Believe in God of Israel..
Exodus and Deuteronomy.

God dismayed because he created Human and become evil in their lives and they do what they want. But God was pleased with Noah. and He kill every living creature in Earth but God save Noah and His family, and a Pair of every kind of animals.
Genesis 6:1-22

God has a Right to do what he want and we are all servants and we don't have the rights to ask him why he did it or that....

God make all Things good, right and Beautiful.

God has a Plan to those who love Him and Worship him in his way.

Exodus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by slevesque, posted 02-23-2010 12:39 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Coragyps, posted 03-27-2010 6:43 PM Sparcz1978 has not yet responded
 Message 210 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-02-2010 11:56 AM Sparcz1978 has not yet responded
 Message 211 by bluescat48, posted 05-03-2010 1:16 AM Sparcz1978 has not yet responded

Sparcz1978
Junior Member (Idle past 3670 days)
Posts: 12
Joined: 03-27-2010


Message 198 of 477 (552231)
03-27-2010 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by slevesque
02-23-2010 12:39 AM


Psalm 14:1 (King James Version)

Psalm 14

1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

God warned for those who are Atheism....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by slevesque, posted 02-23-2010 12:39 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by hooah212002, posted 03-27-2010 7:00 PM Sparcz1978 has not yet responded
 Message 201 by AZPaul3, posted 03-28-2010 12:20 AM Sparcz1978 has not yet responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5513
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 199 of 477 (552252)
03-27-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Sparcz1978
03-27-2010 3:06 PM


God did not kill babies in the old testament....

Really? No babies were around at the Flood, and none lived in Sodom or Gemorrah, and the first-born of the Egyptians were all grown? It's your book, Sparcz! Read it!


"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Sparcz1978, posted 03-27-2010 3:06 PM Sparcz1978 has not yet responded

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 23 days)
Posts: 3188
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 200 of 477 (552253)
03-27-2010 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Sparcz1978
03-27-2010 3:15 PM


God warned for those who are Atheism....

My god, the REAL god, the one true Holy One, The FSM, warned against idiots.

You alone prove the existence of His Noodley Holiness.


"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Others—for example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einstein—considered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan

"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Sparcz1978, posted 03-27-2010 3:15 PM Sparcz1978 has not yet responded

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5162
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 201 of 477 (552286)
03-28-2010 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Sparcz1978
03-27-2010 3:15 PM


The Gospel According to AZPaul3
AZPaul3 4-6 (New World Freedom Edition)

Know ye the power that is ours, a greater power than any else upon the heavens and upon the earth. All gods, save not one, doth know of our power and fear of us. No god nor devil nor spirit of any place nor of any time may overcome us nor defeat us.
-AZPaul3 4:13-15

No host of heaven nor spawn of hell are safe from us. All are subject to our voice and to our thought. Know ye the power of our voice and the power of our thought that none may continue but be vanished from the mind of humanity.
-AZPaul3 4:18-20

And They said unto the believer, Feel how he doth tremble in your heart. Yea, he doth tremble in our presence and at the mention of our name and with the hearing of our name he doth tremble. See him scurry as doth the frightened rat unto the shadows of your mind. See him hide unto the darkness of your ignorance.
-AZPaul3 5:5-9

From the depth of our mind we banish him. By the power of our voice and the power of our thought we consign him to oblivion for all eternity. He is of no affect nor does he have power over our minds nor over our lives nor over our world nor over any world nor over any space nor over any time. He will be as forgotten as the thousands of gods that came before him. By our power he is banished from the minds of men from which he came.
-AZPaul3 5:14-18

Know ye the power that is ours, a greater power than any else upon the heavens and upon the earth. But with a word, but with a thought, we vanquish the once thought powerful that ruled us by fear and gave us ignorance and death, the once thought all mighty that cowed us into evil and all manner of abomination. We are the power. We are the all mighty.
We are Atheist.
-AZPaul3 6:8-12

Edited by AZPaul3, : a better thought


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Sparcz1978, posted 03-27-2010 3:15 PM Sparcz1978 has not yet responded

killinghurts
Member (Idle past 3549 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


(1)
Message 202 of 477 (552980)
04-01-2010 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Pauline
03-23-2010 11:00 PM


"Dr. Sing" writes:


Yep, that's not reasonable to you, I know. If the person wants a logical, evidence-based explanation, there is none (at least not that I'm aware of). If the person wants to how it really is done, I just told him.

So you have to lie to yourself (i.e proclaim God exists without evidence) in order to reasonably conclude God exists...

Okay...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Pauline, posted 03-23-2010 11:00 PM Pauline has not yet responded

Stile
Member
Posts: 3951
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 203 of 477 (553171)
04-01-2010 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Pauline
03-23-2010 11:00 PM


Reasonable
Dr. Sing writes:

Yep, that's not reasonable to you, I know. If the person wants a logical, evidence-based explanation, there is none (at least not that I'm aware of). If the person wants to how it really is done, I just told him.

If "reasonable" is not "a logical, evidence-based explanation"... that what, specifically, does "reasonable" mean to you? "Acceptable to me" is not the same as "reasonable."

I will not argue that "faith" is a (the only, even?) acceptable reason for some people to accept the Bible and God as truth. However, that certainly does not make it reasonable. Not in a mature, responsible sense of the word, anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Pauline, posted 03-23-2010 11:00 PM Pauline has acknowledged this reply

jallen04
Junior Member (Idle past 3568 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 04-27-2010


Message 204 of 477 (557656)
04-27-2010 1:40 PM


Before I ask my question I want to establish a few things that I understand about Christianity.

1) One is not just Christian because they go to church or even wear the robes of a priest or minister. It is a personal thing that exists between a believer and their god.
2) The bible was gathered together from thousands of texts. A group of monks poured through these and determined what was divinely inspired. They included those in the bible and discarded the rest that weren't. It stands to reason that they would have to be divinely inspired themselves to determine if the original writer was divinely inspired. Otherwise their decisions might be influened by personal beliefs and politics.
3) The RCC from whence the divinely inspired creators of the bible originated from it's beginning was plagued by individuals in it's leadership that were decidedly less than christian.

Now in view of the previous statements:

If even one of those monks faith was compromised in any way, if they were swayed by evil wouldn't that make everything they determined to be divine suspect? How do you know that every determination of divinity was made by an individual who was divinely inspired and not including or maybe more importantly excluding texts that didn't meet his personal religious and / or political views? Doesn't this make the whole bible suspect?

Edited by jallen04, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Pauline, posted 05-01-2010 3:59 PM jallen04 has responded

Pauline
Member (Idle past 2291 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


(1)
Message 205 of 477 (558469)
05-01-2010 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dr Adequate
03-24-2010 2:35 AM


DS writes:

But faith isn't a pursuit of "discovering facts' based on "finding proof'.

DA writes:

Which is my point. You were asked how you could reasonably know that God exists, and you answered "faith". This is as though I asked an anti-semite how he could reasonably know that Jews are subhuman and he answered "bigotry". Or if I asked a New Ager how he could reasonably believe in astrology and he answered "superstition". Or if I asked David Icke how he could reasonably know that the world is secretly being run by reptilian lizard-men and he answered "because I'm mentally ill". You were asked for a reasonable foundation for your beliefs and you responded by naming a form of irrationality.

Well, were you expecting something like...

I believe in God because I observed ______ physical evidence for His existence and formulated a scientific hypothesis and conducted a controlled experiment in my independent research lab, published a paper (which was warmly received and agreed with by my peers) and now I present my hypothesis to you so that you can also indenpendently verify God's existence.

If you haven't come to grips with the fact, yes, faith is irrational. Irrational in that it is not entirely a product of reason. My Salvation and faith were installed in me by a supernatural being, are preserved by a supernatural being, and are controlled by a supernatural being. I believe in God not because I scrutinized, analyzed, evaluated, and finally accepted the Bible. My faith preceeded all this. In Christianity, faith precceds reason (not vice versa) and reason prolongs, preserves, and grows faith. If you want to call faith irrational in this sense, thats okay with me. But if someone says faith is a completely random idea that originated in a idle man's brain and is not supported by reason at all there fore it is irrational and need be discarded, is false.

DA writes:

Show me an "archaeologist and unbeliever" who thinks that that's a real historical fact rather than a fairy-story for children. [--referring to the Flood--]

I can't think of any off the top of my head. I can think of believers who do, but not unbelievers. I have read quotes from unbelievers who accept the Bible's historicity as whole, but I haven't , to the best of my memory, come across a unbeliever who specifically affirms the Universal Flood. If I do, (or if you do), I'll let you know.

OT writes:

Assert whatever you like about your personal reasons for accepting and maintaining your particular religion (or faith, or religious faith) -- I'll respect that (to the extent that it's not indicative of pathology) -- but for your own good, don't make it dependent on how the Bible is thoroughly and completely accurate as a historical document. I'm not saying it's all false: the New Testament clearly contains references to places, individuals and even some events whose existence/occurrence has been independently verified; less so for the Old Testament -- there are some confirmed references, but just on the basis of the flood and the tower, I have to conclude that it really doesn't work as history.

So, you're essentially asking that every single physical evidence for parts of the Bible you do not acknowledge as history to be proven, or else you will continue to disbelieve?

What if, say, right after the Flood, Noah and Co decided to dismantle the Ark for need of wood to build structures? What if some other culture did the same? What is we never find any physical evidence for the Flood? You're looking for perfect evidence of every single thing mentioned in the Bible. Nothing can satisfy your expectation. Hypothetically speaking, say every single Biblical claim was to be affirmed in your day, IMO, you still would reject the Word.

What I have seen most often is that atheists/agnostics' questioning the Bible's veracity is a product of disagreeing with its content, as in its pure religious/moral content and not historical data EVEN though, they talk mostly about "not having evidence to affirms its historical content therefore... " Even if a miracle were to happen today and right now, before our eyes to show us clearly that Christ is God, I am sure many will not believe.

Phage writes:

Think about the origin of the religion itself, supposing it were not created by someone actually expecting salvation but rather by a con artist looking for an ironclad scam. He claims an immaterial god doing undetectable things, for motives that are impossible to understand, through magical methods, and requires devotion hopeless to verify.

Such a position is guarded in every possible way against disproof, as the claimant can never be accused of not living up to their own standards. Assessing the plausibility of a religion based on the suitability of its tenants to an adherent presupposes that it is true. A more useful measure would be to assess the plausibility of a religion based on its suitability to a dishonest claimant.

Are you suggesting that there is no objective way to discredit a claimant of Christianity based on the what the Bible says?

Well, the Bible goes so far as to describe false prophets and false miracle workers, let alone dishonest believers. What do you think was the point behind "fruit of the Spirit"?

KH writes:

So you have to lie to yourself [...] in order to reasonably conclude God exists...

Okay...

No, you have to stop lying to yourself in order to believe God exists.

Edited by Dr. Sing, : grammar and spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-24-2010 2:35 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2010 5:06 AM Pauline has responded

Pauline
Member (Idle past 2291 days)
Posts: 283
Joined: 07-07-2008


(1)
Message 206 of 477 (558471)
05-01-2010 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by jallen04
04-27-2010 1:40 PM


jallen writes:

A group of monks poured through these and determined what was divinely inspired. They included those in the bible and discarded the rest that weren't. It stands to reason that they would have to be divinely inspired themselves to determine if the original writer was divinely inspired. Otherwise their decisions might be influened by personal beliefs and politics.

Welcome to EvC, jallen.

Determined is the wrong word. Recognized is the accurate word. The Canon is not a result of men's pick and choosing favorable Books, rather men (plain men, not divinely inspired as in the writers of the Bible were) simply held every book up to a "measuring scale", called the Regula Fidei in order to asses their "inspiration". The Regula itself is derived from one of Paul's verses in the NT. No person on that committee had any personal choice or influence with regards to assessing a book's inspiration. To bear marks of divine inspiration, a book had to also bear these characteristics"

1. Conformity to the Regula Fidei
Regula Fidei: rule of faith. There was a standard of teaching a body of dogma, that is the measuring scale for all newly discovered books, and the present canon agrees with the regula fidei

2. Apostolicity
Every book of the NT has to come through the Apostle, or someone closely associated with an apostle. This is the most common criterium

3. Intrinsic superiority of the canonical books compared to other books

4. Wide and continuous acceptance by people of the book's day and age as divinely inspired.

We see that our present Canon conforms to these stipulations. And books not included, do not conform. As for the OT, it is generally believed to have been formulated by Jesus' time. Since the Protestant Church vests ultimate authority in the Scripture, unlike the Catholic Church, it is extremely important that the present Canon reflect truth. There is no room for personal/evil influence or bias.

Edited by Dr. Sing, : grammar


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by jallen04, posted 04-27-2010 1:40 PM jallen04 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by jallen04, posted 05-03-2010 9:10 AM Pauline has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3485 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 207 of 477 (558517)
05-01-2010 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Dr Adequate
03-15-2010 2:03 AM


Re: Omnipresence
DrAdequate writes:

“Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the Lord. --- Jeremiah 23:24

Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, Even there Your hand will alead me, And Your right hand will lay hold of me. --- Psalm 139:7-10

these verses may appear to be saying that God himself is everywhere, but notice in Psalm 139:7 the context is determined by the word 'spirit'
its Gods 'holy spirit' that he can send anywhere at any time, but not God himself. Also in Vs 8 its talking about 'sheol' the common grave of mankind. A place where no one in conscious, so really the psalmist is saying that no matter where WE may be, God will know about it.

Genesis 1:2 backs that up the point about the spirit when it says that "Gods holy spirit was going to and fro over the surface of the waters" in the creation.

And if you look at Psalm 113:6, it shows that he does not actually reside in the physical heavenly sky, but looks down onto it from another place. This other place is not in the physical world but in the spiritual world...they are different dimentions.
 "He is condescending to look on heaven and earth"

And finally the verse in Jeremiah actually begins with:

Jeremiah 23:24 writes:

 “Or can any man be concealed in places of concealment and I myself not see him?” is the utterance of Jehovah.


So its really showing that we ourselves, whereever we may be, God can see us. Its not saying that he physcially exists in every place.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2010 2:03 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2010 4:35 AM Peg has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 208 of 477 (558535)
05-02-2010 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Peg
05-01-2010 8:39 PM


Re: Omnipresence
these verses may appear to be saying that God himself is everywhere, but notice in Psalm 139:7 the context is determined by the word 'spirit'

And notice that in Jeremiah 23:24 it isn't.

So its really showing that we ourselves, whereever we may be, God can see us. Its not saying that he physcially exists in every place.

The fact that God says that he can see everything does not mean that when he says he is everywhere he doesn't really mean that he is everywhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Peg, posted 05-01-2010 8:39 PM Peg has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16111
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 209 of 477 (558536)
05-02-2010 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Pauline
05-01-2010 3:39 PM


Well, were you expecting something like...

I believe in God because I observed ______ physical evidence for His existence and formulated a scientific hypothesis and conducted a controlled experiment in my independent research lab, published a paper (which was warmly received and agreed with by my peers) and now I present my hypothesis to you so that you can also indenpendently verify God's existence.

No. I was expecting nothing at all like that. That was and remains my point. I expect that you and your creationist chums will never be able to say anything like that. 'Cos of you being wrong.

If you haven't come to grips with the fact, yes, faith is irrational.

Again, that is my point.

My Salvation and faith were installed in me by a supernatural being, are preserved by a supernatural being, and are controlled by a supernatural being. I believe in God not because I scrutinized, analyzed, evaluated, and finally accepted the Bible. My faith preceeded all this.

Well, let me rewrite that for you. What you should have said was this:

I have faith that my Salvation and faith were installed in me by a supernatural being, are preserved by a supernatural being, and are controlled by a supernatural being. I have faith that I believe in God not because I scrutinized, analyzed, evaluated, and finally accepted the Bible. I have faith that my faith preceded all this.

You see, you have faith in faith itself. But you don't have evidence, as we normally understand it. When I say that I have two legs, then this is a question susceptible to investigation. In the last resort you could take a ticket to Las Vegas and track me down and count my legs yourself.

So you don't have the same standing to say: "My Salvation and faith were installed in me by a supernatural being", in the same way that I have standing to say: "I have two legs".

I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Then stop saying things that are not true.

You wrote:

There are expert archaeologists, many unbelievers I might add, who acknowledge the historicity of the Bible.

Challenged to name just one such person ... you've got zip. Zilch. Nada.

And you said that there were "many" such people. But you can't name one

So why did you say it in the first place? Don't you feel a little bit ashamed of yourself when you do stuff like that? Does the phrase THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS mean nothing to you?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Pauline, posted 05-01-2010 3:39 PM Pauline has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Pauline, posted 05-03-2010 1:14 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 6026
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 210 of 477 (558570)
05-02-2010 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Sparcz1978
03-27-2010 3:06 PM


God did not kill babies in the old testament

Have you even read the bible?

quote:
And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. -- Exodus 12:29-30


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Sparcz1978, posted 03-27-2010 3:06 PM Sparcz1978 has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020