What makes so many people hate God

Unfortunately. I can only find this hagigah reference used as evidence in the support of the two genealogies. The people who use this as evidence never seem to produce the actual document, which makes even me somewhat leary as to whether or not this is accurate. I had come across this earlier but could not produce the document to support it. I will continue to try .------------------
saved by grace

Just kinda bumping this thread.Forgiven??? No response???Busy burning your NT's and breaking your crosses perhaps?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
Now lets try this agian in very small bite sized chunks.

​

In order for Christ to be the Messiah he must meet the genealogical requirements.

​

We have two genealogies from which to choose. One presented by Luke, the other by Matthew.

​

Luke traces Christ's genealogy through Nathan. For the prophecies to stand the lineage needs to be traced through Solomon. So we strike Luke's genealogy.

​

Matthew's genealogy includes the cursed-by-god-forever king Jeconiah so we strike that one too.

​

Now you could argue that the curse does not apply because Christ is not the biological child of Joseph, hence his blood is not tainted. Funkie made such a claim. However, for the genealogy through Joseph to work at all, we must assume that the adoption of Jesus by Joseph is equivalent to a blood relationship. Otherwise we would have to get messianic rights through Mary, and as we have seen, that line is not valid.

​

Both genealogies are invalid messianic lines. This is the checkmate you have thus far managed to avoid seeing.

​

---

------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

I would never burn my new testament. ------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I would never burn my new testament.

​

---

No matter what the evidence against it?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Remember also I have personal evidence that fits nowhere into this discussion. That you can call invalid here but that is very much valid to me. We also seem to think very differently by nature, that makes it difficult for us to understand why the other thinks the way he does.------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Remember also I have personal evidence that fits nowhere into this discussion. That you can call invalid here but that is very much valid to me. We also seem to think very differently by nature, that makes it difficult for us to understand why the other thinks the way he does.

​

---

Backtrack the thread Funkie. Christ can't be the messiah because neither Mary nor Joseph were in valid messianic lines. Its right there in the Bible. I assume that you believe the Bible?Well, there you have it. The Bible contains the criterion for the messiah. The bible also has the genealogy of Christ-- two in fact. Neither of them are valid messianic lines. Ergo, as per the Bible itself, Christ ain't the messiah.Oops!------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by John:Well, there you have it. The Bible contains the criterion for the messiah. The bible also has the genealogy of Christ-- two in fact. Neither of them are valid messianic lines. Ergo, as per the Bible itself, Christ ain't the messiah.Oops!
[/B][/QUOTE]John, you have raised a valid question for which a suitable answer has not been made available to you. The absence of the answer does not prove your point.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chara:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by John:Well, there you have it. The Bible contains the criterion for the messiah. The bible also has the genealogy of Christ-- two in fact. Neither of them are valid messianic lines. Ergo, as per the Bible itself, Christ ain't the messiah.Oops!
[/B][/QUOTE]John, you have raised a valid question for which a suitable answer has not been made available to you. The absence of the answer does not prove your point. [/B][/QUOTE]No, it doesn't. However, in the absense of that answer my point stands. That is as proven as anything gets in the real world.But on to some specifics. This is the sort of thing which seems to me to be too blatantly obvious for there to not be a ready made response. In fact, it seems like there should be mountains of refutations, correct or not. Yet, I get no response. Nothing. You pick on, for example, the figure for pi in the OT and you get a firestorm. This attack upon the messiah gets nothing? Very strange indeed.Your final sentence is peculiar, me thinks. The absense of an answer does not prove my point? No, my argument for my point proves the point.
What you appear to be doing is hanging your hat on the assumption that an answer will be found. This is a bit backwards don't you think?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

I don't think it's backwards. John there are a few explanations for the two genealogies which seem valid enough to me ,though i grew tired of discussing them with you. Somehow in the atheist world the huge amount of times the bible is in sync with itself is over ridden by the handful of nit pickings that would suggest a possible contradiction. In discussion of these things most of which are wording or scripture taken out of context, if an atheist takes a wording literally and there is an explanation with some cross referencing and clarification of wording an unbeliever will stick stubbornly to the fact that it has to be taken litterally. Then still other attacks on the word of God draw what they would decide is the meaning of a passage, that is in fact stated literally. What bothers me the most is that there are men who have studied the bible all their lives and walked with God, when these same men give an explanation for something, u can really say he's wrong he doesn't know what he's talking about. Would you say to an expert in science that his belief is wrong even though you are not studied in his field. Okay now i'm rambling and again as usual have lost my point in a mess of ideas. However my original question was pretty much "Why is the word of God mocked and laughed at?" which to me is the denial and hatred of God. I didn't ask why are there two genealogies for Jesus. Foolishly i allowed you to run me around into that but I was asking you what basis you had for this hatred of God. You said the bible "condradicts" itself and there is not enough physical evidence for some events in the bible to appease your doubts. As for the "proof" that Jesus was not the messiah i still don't see any. Maybe it's my own presupposition but to me this discussion has unveiled to me the magnificence of God, i marvel at his works, how in his wisdom he made it impossible for man to fake messiahship. I am overwhelmed by the works of my God. If i find something new on the genealogies i'll let you know.------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Foolishly i allowed you to run me around into that but I was asking you what basis you had for this hatred of God.

---

One has to believe in the existence of God to hate God. And it is only those who believe the Bible, or other scriptures, to be the word of God who feel God's word is being mocked.As an atheist, if I ever criticise passages from the Bible, I feel it to be no worse than criticising, or questioning, any other text from any other source.Just as any other book has it's fair share of critics, I would expect the biggest selling, most widely distributed, book to recieve the most criticism.

To deny God is to hate him in my opinion. (note my opinion) I agree with you that the bible can be picked at as much as any other book. Go right ahead. You won't be the first, and like all the rest you will pass away and the word of God will continue. It has been predicted before that the bible was on it's last life, that it would soon be completely discredited. Voltaire (who died in 1778) once said that within 100yrs of his passing Christianity would be wiped off the planet existing only in history. Kinda funny Volataire is history, and Christianity and God's word are still here. God does have a sense of humor too you'll find as within 50 yrs of his death the Geneva bible society used Volataire's house and his press to produce a stack of bibles. The bible has stood through more attacks then any other book. Why? because it completely contradicts the world view. No one likes to know that they are born into sin, there's nothing they can do about it. Not only attacks of criticism, how many times has the bible been physically attacked, attempts to burn them all and destroy Christianity have failed over and over again. I don't think any other book in history has been combed over to the extent of the bible and yet it stands. Why? because it is God's word. It would seem to me to that more and more descrepencies and arguments against the bible have been proven wrong. The list against the bible grows smaller and smaller as we go. Why? because it's true. It is my personal opinion that attacks on the bible are a desperate attempt to disprove something that doesn't fit into world views. btw i don't feel inclined to factually defend all my views this is after all in the FAITH and BELIEF section not science.------------------
saved by grace

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I don't think it's backwards.

---

Hi Funkie,So ... "I have no reason to believe right now but someday I will so I believe right now anyway" isn't backwards?

quote:

---

John there are a few explanations for the two genealogies which seem valid enough to me ,though i grew tired of discussing them with you.

---

Funk, you had nothing. Nada. Not a shred of evidence. All you had was a story you made up which dead flat contradicts the Bible, but which gets you out of part of the genealogy problem. That is, you contradict the Bible to prove that it isn't contradictory. Weird...

quote:

---

Somehow in the atheist world the huge amount of times the bible is in sync with itself is over ridden by the handful of nit pickings that would suggest a possible contradiction.

---

Hmmm.... Steven King's books are typically in sync with themselves. What does this prove?What you are missing is that fundamentalists, having no external evidence for their myth, lay extravagant claims about the internal consistency of the Bible and how impossible such a thing is without the intervention of God. Ie, the internal consistency of the Bible is used as a proof of God. And it is just too easy to pick apart.

quote:

---

In discussion of these things most of which are wording or scripture taken out of context

---

Was it not you who was trying to convince me that a passage which read "Joseph, father of Jesus" was actually talking about Mary?I have never seen so much taking scripture out of context as I saw in church as a kid. I think the method must be taught in Bible College.

quote:

---

if an atheist takes a wording literally and there is an explanation with some cross referencing and clarification of wording an unbeliever will stick stubbornly to the fact that it has to be taken litterally.

---

Not so, if that cross-refencing and clarification can be justified.

quote:

---

Then still other attacks on the word of God draw what they would decide is the meaning of a passage, that is in fact stated literally.

---

You lost me. Hehe... lost....

quote:

---

What bothers me the most is that there are men who have studied the bible all their lives and walked with God, when these same men give an explanation for something, u can really say he's wrong he doesn't know what he's talking about.

---

Depends on what he is talking about. That someone is old and has studied the bible a lot does not mean he is right. Please? You don't really think this can be taken seriously? How about old guys who have studied geology a lot and say the planet is older than the Biblical account by a few billion years? Can you really say that this old guy doesn't know what he is talking about?

quote:

---

Would you say to an expert in science that his belief is wrong even though you are not studied in his field.

---

I wouldn't have an opinion if I had not studied the topic. I think you are making an appeal to authority here that is going to bite you if you push it too hard. You see, by the same logic, you cannot have a valid opinion in, say, evolutionary biology, if you haven't studied in the field. In other words, you don't want to go there.

quote:

---

However my original question was pretty much "Why is the word of God mocked and laughed at?" which to me is the denial and hatred of God.

---

Ok. Because it is crap. It isn't the word of God, but the record of the mythology of a nomadic warlike tribe who lived several thousand years ago in and about the fertile crescent.

quote:

---

I didn't ask why are there two genealogies for Jesus.

---

I believe it was in answer to your question.

quote:

---

Foolishly i allowed you to run me around into that

---

Foolishly? When is analyzing your beliefs ever foolish?

quote:

---

but I was asking you what basis you had for this hatred of God.

---

Don't have a hatred of God. To hate, one first has to believe.

quote:

---

You said the bible "condradicts" itself and there is not enough physical evidence for some events in the bible to appease your doubts.

---

hmmm... believe first or look for evidence first?

quote:

---

As for the "proof" that Jesus was not the messiah i still don't see any.

---

Really?The Messiah as prophecied in the OT must be of the line of David via Solomon.Matthew and Luke each give us a genealogy from which to choose.Luke's genealogy does not include Solomon. Strike that one.Matthew's genealogy does include a king cursed by God forever and ever. Strike that one.Hence, Jesus has no valid messianic lineage.Hence, Jesus ain't the messiah foretold in the OT.Hence, the religion is a farce.Where is that not clear?

quote:

---

Maybe it's my own presupposition but to me this discussion has unveiled to me the magnificence of God, i marvel at his works, how in his wisdom he made it impossible for man to fake messiahship.

---

Right....[qutoe]I am overwhelmed by the works of my God.[/quote]Apparently...

quote:

---

If i find something new on the genealogies i'll let you know.

​

---

You do that.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

You are quite right in that i have not given you the correct answer to the genealogies question. The more i research i find most of the info i used was right but i have pieced it together incorectly. I've been through alot of peoples ideas on this and so far they are all off the mark. I haven't quit working on it though.
I guess believing before the evidence is found is backwards. That's that faith thing again.
Stephen King is a single author in a short period of time pretty easy for him to be consistent. The bible is multiple authors over a long period of time this makes things much more difficult. I personally think if man made this whole thing up there would be a whole lot more "holes" in the bible than there are.
I don't think they teach taking scripture out of context in bible college, but yes Christians do it too, unfortunately as you pointed out i may have done so as well, though i don't think i did. Searching some Jewish sites and such about that whole thing still.
As far as the comment i made about people who have studied the bible for a long time, it's just a thing that bothers me that i'm not so sure why i posted, other than that i get annoyed when people attack the bible who haven't studied it. Study being different than just read. Your point about the geologist is good i did note that. Though as soon as i saw billions of years my mind screamed fairytale but that's a whole other topic i'll leave to scientists.
I didn't mean it was foolish to examine my beliefs and i am really enjoying the study of genealogies. I just meant that when i came on here i asked a question just to get a feel for what was the general concensus around here on that topic and why.
As far as the you have to believe in God to hate him, I don't believe that to be true, I think to deny his very existance is to spit in his face and ultimately to hate him (again my opinion)
and again Faith and Belief.
I haven't quit on the genealogies thing i'm consulting some smart people on that one but i'll get back to you when i understand it as i stated before.Iused to skip the genealogies thinking they were boring. Well now i know they are there for a reason.------------------
saved by grace

[quote][b]To deny God is to hate him in my opinion. (note my opinion)[/quote][/b]
How can I hate that which I deny? I don't hate God, as I don't believe him to exist. Therefore your opinion is incorrect. [quote][b]I agree with you that the bible can be picked at as much as any other book. Go right ahead.[/quote][/b]
I don't make it a priority in my daily life. The Bible has no importance to me whatsoever. [quote][b]You won't be the first, and like all the rest you will pass away and the word of God will continue.[/quote][/b]
As will the works of Shakespeare, Nabokov, Tolstoy, Joyce etc. [quote][b]It has been predicted before that the bible was on it's last life, that it would soon be completely discredited.[/quote][/b]
Like Santa Claus? [quote][b]Voltaire (who died in 1778) once said that within 100yrs of his passing Christianity would be wiped off the planet existing only in history. Kinda funny Volataire is history, and Christianity and God's word are still here.[/quote][/b]
It was a foolish prediction that I personally would never make. And I believe your argument to have a hint of ad hominem. Correct me if I'm wrong. [quote][b]God does have a sense of humor too you'll find as within 50 yrs of his death the Geneva bible society used Volataire's house and his press to produce a stack of bibles.[/quote][/b]
More like the Geneva bible society thinking they'd scored a 'point' against atheism. [quote][b]The bible has stood through more attacks then any other book.[/quote][/b]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. Do you mean all the errancy claims within the Bible have been disproven, or that those who believe it to be the word of God put their fingers in their ears when confronted with such evidence? [quote][b]Why? because it completely contradicts the world view.[/quote][/b]
What exactly is the world view? [quote][b]No one likes to know that they are born into sin, there's nothing they can do about it.[/quote][/b]
I know that I am not born into sin. That's their problem, not mine. Why do you assume the 'world' thinks that? [quote][b]Not only attacks of criticism, how many times has the bible been physically attacked, attempts to burn them all and destroy Christianity have failed over and over again.[/quote][/b]
Burning of flags and books is a past-time of the fanatic. Don't include me in that demographic. [quote][b]I don't think any other book in history has been combed over to the extent of the bible and yet it stands.[/quote][/b]
Only in the eyes of the Christian. [quote][b]Why? because it is God's word.[/quote][/b]
Same answer as above. [quote][b]It would seem to me to that more and more descrepencies and arguments against the bible have been proven wrong. The list against the bible grows smaller and smaller as we go. Why? because it's true.[/quote][/b]
For example? [quote][b]It is my personal opinion that attacks on the bible are a desperate attempt to disprove something that doesn't fit into world views.[/quote][/b]
It is my personal opinion that science and reasoning are attacked because they don't fit into the Bible's 'view'. [quote][b]btw i don't feel inclined to factually defend all my views this is after all in the FAITH and BELIEF section not science.[/quote][/b]
Then why do you continually attempt to use what you believe to be facts to press your views? I'm sure you'd be one of the first to quote science if it were in your favour.

.[This message has been edited by :j: Lizard Lips, 11-22-2002]