|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What you want to know about Christ. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
God created us, and has a right to take our life away. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Give me a verse which demonstrates God's 'thirst for blood'. 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: Exodus 12:29
quote: 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.
God created us, and has a right to take our life away. 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.
God gave Jonah free choice. He allowed him to get halfway across the world and then still allowed him the choice of whether or not to admit to causing the storm, the choice to obey after God saved him with a fish. "Do it or I'll make your life fucking miserable forever" is not a choice. That's what we call "force."
Pharoah did have that choice, but God knew already what his response would be. God knows all. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
You believe the Bible is true becasue the Bible itself says it is true? Can you see the problem with the logic of this? quote: 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
gen writes:
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. This thread is intended to answer anyone's questions about Jesus, the Bible and Christianity in general. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Just curious: Are there any references in the Bible to Jesus's circumcision? Certainly. Luke 2:21
quote: Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
and this is why eyewitness testimony is bupkis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
They will not be judged as if they know the law. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Hoot mon writes: I would like to know if Jesus was genetically diploid or haploid. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
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.
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.
John is very different in character than the other three Gospels. quite.
That's why the timing of the crucifiction was changed. Jesus becomes the symbolic "sacrificial Passover lamb" for all of humanity.
i think that's a reach.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
John, for example, was written something like 300 years later, IIRC. Matthew: 70-100 CE
Mark: 65-75 CE Luke: 60-100 CE John: 90-100 CE But 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5946 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
gen writes: I am sure you believe things that you have not seen with your own eyes, such as the fact the world is round, the earth is so big, and the sun is so big. (I'm not sure exactly). There are thousands of examples of faith, and I believe that, in many cases, the Bible can be, and is proven. 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-equivocation Faith 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: How so? It's a fairly mainstream scholarly analysis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5531 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
TrueChristian writes: HM writes:
Certainly. Luke 2:21
Just curious: Are there any references in the Bible to Jesus's circumcision? quote: 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024