How does god allow choices to affect you positively? By not interfering? Or by influencing those choices?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Except it does answer it, unless you have very low standards for "the right track". Would you give Hinduism points because it posits more gods than 0? It's based on completely different mythology from Christianity, and there is probably 0 agreeable ground between the two without seriously bending what Hinduism and Christianity say. 

They do have very opposing core beliefs... though if you look at some of the laws, some overlap

Jabberwocky wrote:

Fine. Hell is punishment for being human because we're descendants of two people who fucked up, so we are being punished for the actions of other people. You can't save anyone. Now the last part....wow. 

"People must save themselves"

"God can only open there (sic) eyes if they allow Him to."

So do we open our own eyes, or does god open them? If god's real, he has my permission to demonstrate it to me.....nope. Still an atheist. 

God opens them.  We have to allow it.

Hell is punishment for our own actions.  The actions of Adam and Eve just opened doors.  

Still an atheist?  How long idd you wait after giving God permission to work in your life?  a few seconds?  minutes?  hours? days? weeks?  My "revelation" took years.  
Also, what were you expecting to experience when you 'gave God permission to deminstrate His existence' to you?  Was it rational, reasonable? 

jabberwocky wrote:

You have said in several spots that many Christians have it wrong (including the Catholics which was my upbringing, as well as yours I understand). You are under the impression, though, that you have the answers to all of the logical problems that most Christians have when trying to reconcile their faith with reality. That is an extraordinary claim, and if it were true, you would be able to educate every Christian on the ACTUAL truth, and then eventually everyone on the planet. My contention is that you fail to grasp logic (including contradicting yourself in a single post above), and cherry pick the parts history and science that suit your argument at that time. 

I don't believe I ever claimed I have all the answers, or as you said "answers to all of the logical problems"  due to my way of finding God I am trying hard to find all those answers... i likely never will, but I do feel i understand a few more logical problems than the average Christian.  I am though on here in hopes of learning more about the logical problems and show where people are misinformed when i understand the failed logic.  

jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, but when the "what happened" questions, and "how" disagree with your bible, you also bring in faith over science. You have faith that the worldwide flood happened, that the fall happened, that the tower of babel happened (if I'm misrepresenting you here, let me know, but I believe you have asserted as much). When it's shown that these events couldn't have happened at any point in time, you continue to believe that they did, despite them being disproved. 

I have yet to see any "disproof" of the tower of babel, the flood or any other part of scripture... rather there's a lack of evidence.. which is not disproof.  Again, science does not prove negatives, it only shows positives.  The flaw in science is you have to know what you're looking for and how to find it as well as in some cases, where.  I disagree that there are parts of the Bible that the how and what happened disagree with... though I'm not sure what example you might be basing that on, so it's hard to answer as to why you might think that.

jabberwocky wrote:

I'm not saying that historical gods couldn't have been based on something. I'm saying that the Hindu gods in your opinion are not indeed gods. Now...am I to understand that you also believe in demonic possession?

It's in the Bible.. and I"m pretty sure I've seen it.

jabberwocky wrote:

Monica Besra is illiterate, and only speaks a tribal tongue and a tiny big of Bengalese. She was treated in a medical facility, and the doctors expected the tumour (which was said to not be cancerous) to go away, as it did. Due to her life situation, she was probably likely to believe it was a miracle. Her statement saying as much was written in English, and probably was more elaborate than something that she could have said even in her mother tongue. 

http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/se_en_14102002.htm

You overestimate the honesty of the Catholic Church. Attempting to saint Mother Teresa was fast-tracked because the Catholic Church is a business. Her canonization would have been a huge positive for the Catholic Church due to Mother Teresa's postiive public image (just don't read into her life TOO much...). 

Note: I did NOT fact-check that link. If something in there is inaccurate, I welcome you to show me. 

the thing is, just because someone believes it happened in the way it did doesn't mean it did happen in that way.. but likewise, it can work with disbelief as well.  The catholic church gives credit to people when it should be to God.   I am not one to defend the process of the Catholic church, but from what I"ve seen of the way they determine miracles of God's work, I'd say they're pretty thorough.  The investigation of the Vatican is not as publicized as this case is.  The process however is publicized.  The determiniation of Sainthood takes years to confirm.  I'm not as familiar with this case, but the more I'm learning about it, the more it sounds like they are external claims that have not been confirmed or denied by the Vatican.  

The Vatican may have claimed that the miracle has been brought ot their attention, but I'm not so sure about the statement,.. it is my understanding that the Vatican interviews, witnesses, family members, doctors, checks records and medical files, cross references them with non-bias independent sources and even waits to see if reoccurance of the illness happens.  With that said, this article sounds very contradictory to what would actually take place to determine a true work of God.  

jabberwocky wrote:

caposkia wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

As far as Satan, how does he work? How powerful is he? 

Satan is a fallen high angel, so He would be as powerful as the most powerful of angels, but still less powerful than God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit.  He works in deceptive ways, He is called; "the father of lies".   the biggest mistake people make about Satan is to think that He is opposed to "good things"... He's not, rather He is opposed to God and anything God stands for.  it is said that God can give people good things so they don't seek out God.  Satan would rather have it that way.

...I'm speechless. If he's opposed to anything god stands for, then if god only stands for good things, then he IS opposed to good things. Oh, and you're capitalizing "He" on Satan now too? Is that necessary?...is it blasphemous? Either way, everything you said here is pretty much gibberish.

the HE thing was mistaken.  Habit.  

anyway, Satan is opposed to God first and foremost... if it took giving someone the perfect life to keep them from God, then Satan will be all for it.  Sometimes Satan gives someone exactly what they want so they have no reason to turn to God.  Sometimes satan just keeps people busy.  Most of the time Satan works through sin.  But Satan cannot be opposed to good if that good separates people from God.  The short term good leads to an ultimate bad.

Everything I say about anything on this topic is gibberish to you until you can accept it as truth.  The Bible acknowledges this as well.   

jabberwocky wrote:

Luck, the situation, nuances in what he said vs. other messiahs, or he just lucked out by having the most convincing followers. The lack of contemporary records of Jesus's existence to me doesn't confirm that he didn't exist. What it does tell me is that whether or not he did, his followers (who are written of more), were very effective in spreading the faith. If he did exist, then his life was exaggerated. If he didn't, then he was probably made up by the actual founder of the Christian movement (Paul?). Muhammad did a good job getting Islam to take off. Does that in any way increase the legitimacy of his claims? Of course not! The same goes for Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard. With the latter 2, we can see that in the USA alone it's possible to get a religion to take off, but a rather low percentage of people who found such movements actually succeed. A low percentage isn't 0% though.

of all history luck did it for those individuals... who has more blind faith you or me?  I mean c'mon really?  "I'm a victim of soicumstance! nyuh nyuh nyuh"  

Jabberwocky wrote:

So for once we agree on something. You're using faith (your unfounded certainty) to assert that a historical figure existed. The entire thing, and every other religion as well, requires some such faith. This shows that the truth of religion is NOT grounded in science, in logic, in history, or in anything which we should base our decisions concerning the truth of something. It is grounded in faith. It is grounded in mere assertion. You are simply asserting what you have been asked to prove. You have just backed into a corner, and admitted that asserting it is all you can possibly do. This is why people with the "Atheist" tag on this board can not take religion seriously.

Until you can actually provide evidence for your assertion, you are exactly where you always were. There is not nearly enough evidence to demonstrate that Christianity portrays the truth about our world, therefore we should refrain from believing it. 

so... I have to use faith on the existence of one particular person in history and suddenly the truth of Christ followers is not grounded in science, logic or history... And you should not play Old Maid in the Bible belt because someone driving by at 70 mph might see you play and think you're playing poker and poker leads to gambling and gambling leads to premarital sex... same logic really.  

Big shocker, I don't have all the answers... we followers don't have all the answers.. if that to you means we base our faith on nothing, by all means you have a right to believe that.  It won't get you far in these realms though.  You're not doing a good job at showing me that my following is flawed.  

*Sigh*. Let's start over. You prayed for more money, and you got your expenditures reduced instead, hence it's moot in terms of net income vs. bills. Your problem is "not enough money". The solutions are "more money" or "less expenditures". If you get more money, you can afford your expenditures. If you get less expenditures, you now aren't in a situation where you have "not enough money". You claim this prayer was made, and answered. You failed to address those who made similar prayers and didn't get help. You did say it's a result of their choices. However, so (most probably) is your family's situation, unless you could show me why your family made nothing but wise financial decisions and found themselves in a bind. Someone getting raped is a result of the choice of the rapist. Someone getting financial relief by less expenditures is a decision made on the part of the creditors. You refuse to address this. I'll put the question at the end. If God was responsible for getting you out of this financial bind, how did he do it without influencing the decisions of people, seeing as people are who manage such things in the world of finance?

Yes, this is true. It's almost as if people, not some mythical bronze age Jewish deity, are responsible for all things to do with finance! Hmm....

Do you listen to what you say when you talk...or type? Yes I can guarantee you that they didn't need nor want their son dying. The absolutely ridiculous shit religious people say to defend their gods still catches me by surprise, even after all these years. 

Yes. It would be better. Get it through your fucking head. This person who died wasn't violent or anything of the sort. I certainly don't know 100%, that is true. However, in order to say that all deaths are a positive thing, you would have to suggest that every child who dies young would have grown up to be a person worse than every genocidal dictator, because god allowed them to survive to adulthood. I simply don't buy that. 

Who makes these new plans available to the people you were on the phone with? Other people! People control finances. In order for something to become available for you to be able to be helped, god would have had to influence decisions. What way could you explain it without involving the interference of choice?

Also, find a website somewhere that explains what irony is, and more importantly what doesn't qualify as irony. You have clearly no idea.

Yes it is. So you accept that I don't have the same evidence from god for his existence as I do for yours, or do you not? If you don't accept that, then what evidence specifically has god given me for his existence that is that obvious?

caposkia wrote:

jabberwocky wrote:

Which part of the bible did you start with that led you on the path?

well, as I said, when I opened the Bible and found that my church, the witnesses and the Bible were all teaching something different I went into a state of disbelief... in other words, I had to look outside the Bible to find the path... I then used the Bible as a guide from there on.  

At this point I have trouble believing that you can even read the bible and understand the sentences in it, since you seem incapable of understanding a simple sentence like my question above. 

Nope. I have. Honestly and truthfully. You have no way of verifying this, but I have no way of verifying your experience so we're quite even. You simply imply that I wasn't honest enough. Of course when you imply something like that, you then put yourself into a situation where you're right by default, because in your world, those who haven't found Jesus are themselves at fault. I could say that you will find the flying spaghetti monster if you read enough of the number "pi". Of course I can forever say that you didn't read far enough when you haven't found him yet. You have devised a framework where the method is vague. You then make correct application of the method dependant on reaching the same conclusion as you. Therefore, all those that don't reach the same conclusion as you, are doing it wrong. When you are asked what they're doing wrong, all you can say is to "believe harder" or something of the sort. So basically, it's "I'm right because I'm right" with a bit of complicated additions to attempt to hide that that's all it is. Unless you can provide a method by which one can come to belief, it's still just faith (belief WITHOUT evidence). 

Answer the bolded part please. Why did Jesus have to die? Why does that actually make any sense whatsoever, that the solution to a problem is a human sacrifice (much like the animal sacrifices of the old testament)? How can that possibly fix anything?

And fucked are those who might be inclined to believe easier than Thomas, but didn't live to see the earlier miracles. Raising Lazarus from the dead probably would have done it for me. If I heard that Jesus was back, I certainly wouldn't be AS keptical, as Jesus was a figure who constantly defied natural laws to begin with. 

So you admit it's different. That's all I needed. We have less evidence for his existence than those who got to meet him in person. Good of you to concede that. 

 

Bolded part...you have simply asserted what I asked you to explain. "that's how it works. There is a written Law"....ok. If you want to simply accept that on authority, you go ahead. I won't. 

The second part....seriously??? I could just as easily say that you're a piece of shit who lies to people, cons them, steals, and is violent. You are a Christian because you want the ability to be forgiven for all of these things. But I would never say such a thing about someone I don't know, because I'm not an asshole like that. You, on the other hand, have seemingly asserted exactly that about me. I'm not violent, nor dishonest. I don't con people out of anything, or steal.

Now lust? It's that sort of talk from the religious that causes so many problems I won't even get into that. Lust does NOT cause rape, or anything else you attempted to imply that it does. What causes those things is anger and mental illness. Lust is great so long as you don't act on it in any situation where a party doesn't consent to it. Otherwise? Go nuts! I have to say, if that's what you want to imply, that it's all of the amaaaazing sex I have that causes me to be an atheist, you can think that. When I was a Christian, I simply excused it under some sort of loophole anyway. Why? Because I knew there was nothing actually wrong with it (although I had some shame problems early on DUE to my Christian upbringing, and assertions that lust was evil like you have made). Be safe, don't rape, and have fun. What is wrong if those rules are followed?

It took a lot btw here for me to not just swear at you because you asserted that I believe what I believe in order to give myself a personal license to commit immoral acts. You better watch that. If I were to merely call you a complete piece of shit, or an asshole, that would simply be lobbing insults, typically an emotional reaction. You, on the other hand, outlined a way in which you believe that my lack of religiosity is something I do deliberately because I live a depraved lifestyle. Of course, you were merely referring to lust, hence attempting to criminalize something over which we have no control. 

You're right, Christian Science is a sketchy sect. They are biblical though. Since the book is vague at times and full of contradictions, you can make it say almost anything...

There is no link at all. All serious quantum physicists agree on this. Amit and Deepak Chopra use it in order to deliberately mislead people. I don't think that they're insane, I think that they're liars. 

So do you agree that you have revelations that fly in the face of scientific fact? 

why did you personalize any part of that last paragraph?  none of it applied to you unless you saw something i didn't know about.

jabberwocky wrote:

You're right, Christian Science is a sketchy sect. They are biblical though. Since the book is vague at times and full of contradictions, you can make it say almost anything...

well, media has proven you can make anyone say pretty much anything if you take it far enough out of context.

Jabberwocky wrote:

There is no link at all. All serious quantum physicists agree on this. Amit and Deepak Chopra use it in order to deliberately mislead people. I don't think that they're insane, I think that they're liars. 

it would be interesting to elaborate on this a bit.

jabberwocky wrote:

So do you agree that you have revelations that fly in the face of scientific fact? 

I believe the Bible and science can co-exist with no contradiction.  

I asked you to explain how you had a prayer answered (financial help) without influencing other peoples' decisions (considering that finances are 100% controlled by people in every way possible). You have failed to answer this question. If you were inspired to seek out help by your prayer, then you were inspired by an action of yours to proceed with another action. If god pushed you to do it, he has interfered with your free will. Tell me where my logic is wrong here if you wish to continue this particular line of argument. Also, understandable to not share personal details on a public forum. 

\

No, that would be the logical conclusion if god has pre-destined everyone's time and circumstances of death. If everyone dies "when it's their time" and god is responsible for that, you would literally have to say that these people would commit worse offenses than Hitler, Stalin, Jeffery Dahmer, any rapist, or murderer EVER, to say that their premature death is a net positive for the world. 

caposkia wrote:

... and it's true, you do have a belief that takes a far greater faith than mine.

What belief do I have that takes more faith than what you believe? Name one. 

If you mean via dictionary.com (the source we've both seemed to use here) 

dictionary.com wrote:

an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might havebeen, expected.

Now, I have to say that the reason that that's the final definition on that website is the same reason for the #4 definition on the same site of the word "literally" which ironically means NOT literally. That is what irony is. It's not a coincidence. We already have a word for that. It's "coincidence". The point of language is to communicate. If we compromise the precision of the words we use, it makes communication harder. What you're talking about is a coincidence. Please use the proper word! Also, as a Canadian, I apologize to all for Alanis Morisette misinforming the world on that one (even though it's not my job to do so). However, watch her parody of My Humps. I hope it redeems her as it is hilarious. 

Despite my rant, you have failed to answer my question. Finances are controlled by people. Your claim is that god helped you with your finances, without having been able to influence the decisions of people. I will even concede that it's not an argument against his omnipotence. Your god technically would have the ability to influence the decisions of people, but promised not to, and since he is an honest god, he doesn't do that. Your answer to that....let me quote that again

I believe I answered your question above, yuo still haven't answered mine.  I think now as you've posted the definition in questino taht it's not about coincidence.  Ironic is contrary to what you believe shoudl happen... in other words, too ironic is when a list of occurance happen that logically shouldn't happen so congruently.  So when does irony become too ironic to be... well... logical... is that a better way of saying it?

jabberwocky wrote:

You love trying to use people's own arguments against them, don't you! I mentioned this in another post/thread to you I believe (the not being able to prove you're a single real person part). However, I mentioned why I think you are. At the end of the day, it's inconsequential whether you are or not. You respond as one, and even use personal sounding anecdotes (such as the financial relief that prayer helped you with). This is consistent over several posts suggesting that you are one person (or creating the impression that you are). If you're more than one person and being deliberately dishonest, that is a reflection on you, not me. It is expected that forum users who claim to be one person are just that, rather than a collective. I'm really not too worried about being wrong, because all you could possibly say is that I was deceived by people who meant to deceive me, into something as inconsequential as believing that several people were actually one forum member. How embarassing!!!...or not. 

exactly.  I use what you give me to work with.  The idea is you're still having faith that I'm being honest with you about being one person... that I am being legit.  You have no proof other than a compilation of texts that you have deduced to be as you say...  Point and case, it's the very point that you're telling me is illogical to conclude on.

jabberwocky wrote:

Your god? The Christian god? If the Christian god is contingent on the bible being quite true (shit like world-wide floods happening, and the tower of babel story being true, as you have asserted elsewhere on this forum), then nothing. Those concepts are clearly disproven to me. Anything that can be called Christianity has to be attached to the bible to a point that I think is contradictory (either internally, or otheriwse with history and science) that it can't be true. If Christianity is a corruption of the true god, I would find it unlikely, but at least possible. If a god presented himself to me, and others I trust, who corroborated the visitation, and I was confirmed to not be suffering from delusion I might believe it. But every issue I have with the bible would have to be explained really. A tall order for a human. A breeze for an omnipotent god. 

well, you said it, there is nothing that would be obvious to you... an omnipotant God cannot give you nothing to prove to you His existence... it's contradictory and contradictions don't exist.  

Though your nothing is based on the Christian God and the Bible... what of just a God out there at all... any god, not associated with a denomination, religion or otherwise... would still there be anything obvious to you that would confirm to you that there really is a metaphysical God?  Would it have to be a physical manifestation as you seem to imply?  if not what?  If your answer to yourself is still nothing, then there really is nothing God can do to show you because you have determined that nothing will be obvious other than the physical, which is not God.  

Before you misrepresent this, read it carefully, I did post some complicated aspects here.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

HAH! What a crock! You're talking to someone who understood math before he understood English (And I have a better understanding of both than you I'm sure!). You can't see that 2+2=4 until you learn to count to 4. Every time you test two groups of two, it always, always, ALWAYS equals 4 (so long as you're counting in a number system that is base five or higher..and since we count in base ten, we're fine...and even if it's lower, it's still just as functional, just possibly less familiar). Once the concept is explained, it makes sense whenever tested, even though numbers are simply abstract arbitrary concepts. Math is logical, and useful in measuring things in the real world. The accuracy of these measurements is a testament to how good our math skills are. 

Your second paragraph says not 2+2=4, but x+x=god. You have determined the conclusion, but not the process. You have failed to outline the process time and time again. I addressed this below in a post of mine below I will bold for clarity.

the first paragraph is really just a more complicated version of what I said.  I understand math and how it works... you likely might know more than I about math.  I'm not contesting that.  the piont is what adds up to God

so 2nd paragraph.  the problem with determining the process is there is no one process, or a simple process like 2+2 for example.  it's not that easy.  As you know when you start getting into double and triple integrals, math can also be complicated really quickly.  You can have a long equation to come up with a very concise answer.  The furthest I've gotten in math was a 2 page equation for a cloud droplet at -32 degrees Celcius that would determine what weather it would cause.  i know there are other ways of going about it, but the point of the math was to show that there is a structured process to understanding it.  

Going back to the point, same with God.

jabberwocky wrote:

There was no particular part. Good to know. So you just accepted it randomly. You came to Christianity on no evidence, and didn't even attach yourself to any part of the oldest existing original claim (The bible) to do it. Good of you to admit that this is based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!

So how do you go with no particular part to no evidence?  No particular part doesn't mean I didn't read it.  I don't understand why you can't comprehend this.  I know most denominationalists have that "part' that they adhere to as their turning point... I'm sure your denominatinoalist past is reaching for that moment, but I honestly don't have one.  I did scientific, historical, archaeological and Biblical research... if you believe that's no evidence, then again, I will claim your faith is greater than mine becasue you believe more with less evidence than I.

Jabberwocky wrote:

You have explained the following

1. Animals used to be valuable, so to offer them as a burnt offering would be detrimental

2. That's what god wanted...I guess.

3. A human sacrifice actually orchestrated by god is somehow better

I asked you why sacrificing anything, in the way of subjecting a sentient creature to torture, solves ANY problem! You regurgitated doctrine again. Nothing more.

I regurgitaed scripture... what doctrine did I follow?

The creatures were actually killed, not tortured by the means that we would understand today.   None of it ever claimed to "solve a problem" rather it was the consequence and payment for your wrongdoing... it was like paying a fine.  

Consider that you have a pet you love.. not only were the livestock money and food for the people, they also loved their animals.  Now imagine you broke a law you knew.  The court ordered you as a penalty for your wrongdoing to instead of serving jail time, instead of giving the state money, you had to kill your pet... how likely do you think you and others would be to commit that crime again?   Most people today claim they'd never do it in the first place... think about that for a moment... let's put it in context of a speeding ticket.  how much slower do you think your commute to work would be?

Jabberwocky wrote:

You just cited the exact...same...verse...that was brought up to argue this. I just stated that given Thomas's evidence in the story, I would doubt less than him. I have not been given that evidence today. Until I beleve, I am condemned to hell. How is that ok? 

why do you keep associating your condemnation to hell with beilef?  it has nothing to do with belief, it has everything to do with your choices in life and actions.  Have you broken Gods laws?  and if so, do you assume they don't apply to you because you don't beleive?

the thing is, if God is real as Christians believe, then whether you believe it or not, you are responsible before God for what you do.  This is why fanatics get so in your face about it, (though that is the obvious wrong way to go about it)

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Sure. I haven't a single clue what you mean. I asked why vicarious redemption is a good thing, and effective as well. Why is torturing a sentient being relevant to another being's wrongdoings?

well the spirit of the law is what the law was originally intended for... e.g. rape laws were put in place to protect victims from attackers raping them and give them retribution when the wrongdoing is done to them.  This would apply to the age limit where adults try to seduce young teens or children.  However, people abuse the word of the law by trying to prosecute a consentual relationship between a 15 year old and an 18 year old because the law states that anyone age 18 or older cannot have relations with someone 17 or younger... (actual case).

that's what I meant by spirit of law to word of law.

now the point of the laws in teh OT is to prove that man cannot meet the expectations of God.  Rather than seeing that message, they thought that they could redeem themselves through redundant sacrifice... ultimately it ended up being so old hat that animal sacrifice turned into a way of life... 

God made a law with a specific consequence... because it became so common to sacrifice, God knew the only way to get through to the people was to turn the sacrifice into a human being... more specifically Jesus Christ.  To see a human as a sacrifice for others sins, that was outrageous.. but necessary to make the piont and get the message out.

jabberwocky wrote:

But you did. Let me quote it again

caposkia wrote:

 but the only reason why someone would not want to worship God is becuase they haven't accepted the gift of Jesus that God has given them.   They also probably have not come to terms with how sinful they are. 

You are asserting here quite blatantly that the reasons to not worship god are reluctance to accept this human sacrifice (which is senseless as I outlined above) and that they are deliberately doing evil shit, and convince themselves to actively supress belief rather than realizing an eternal consequence. That is the implication you have made about me by the above statement. That is a pretty wicked assertion to make about a human you've never met. Now, I don't think that you believe in Jesus as an avenue for forgiveness for the shitty things you do (but I also don't believe the opposite....I'm quite neutral on that). It's because I'm not a presumptuous asshole. I'm not saying that you are based on nothing. I'm saying based on your post that showed that you presumed just that about me.

I did not say "refuse to" I said "haven't accepted"  if you don't accept Jesus, you likely don't understand God and thus would not want to worship him... you're misinterpreting words here.

jabberwocky wrote:

What negative have my fun nights brought? I don't sleep with married (or any otherwise spoken for) women so long as I know that to be the case. What harm is there in 2 consenting adults having any kind of sex they want if they're not breaking a promise to anyone else?

On the other hand, I have outlined the harm above in abstinence only sex-ed. 

just because you have the morals doesn't mean others do... we are responsible for ourselves, but God has applied Law to all for a reason.  

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes. So do you agree that Hinduism came before Judaism?

no, there are known origins of Hinduism.. I haven't found origins of Judaism... or at least that belief system.  The name obviously came much later.

Jabberwocky wrote:

If god's real, he's had my permission his whole life. Something seems wrong. 

Does the supernatural have to be typically reasonable? An omniscient god knows what it would take, an omnipotent god would be able to do it. 

you're right something seems wrong.  Choices always guide us.  God is capable of anything, but we get to choose the ultimate path for ourselves.  I can't assume anything about your walk without getting too personal for a forum.  It may be that the people around you didn't guide you correctly (Biblically).  It could be choices you made yourself.  It could be something completely different.  There's really no way I can determine your next steps in this situation.  

i will pray for you

jabberwocky wrote:

Failed logic like a flood that simulataneously occurred over 2 millions years ago, and under a hundred thousand?

no, that would be a failure at reading carefully

jabberwocky wrote:

Why was the tower knocked down? Too tall/close to heaven? The bible seems to suggest that. Also, if god "confused the languages," he did a shit job. I told you several times. I speak Polish fluently. I can understand varying amounts of Czech, Slovakian, Ukrainian, Russian, Croatian, Belarussian, etc. etc...because it's quite similar. 

ok, to put it in perspective there are an estimated 7000 distinct languages in the world... what percentage of those languages can you speak and/or understand?

jabberwocky wrote:

Science can prove negatives (by ruling things out). Once again, I started discussing with you because of your inconsistency on dating. It was suggested to you (and you agreed at different times) that for Noah's family to warn the world of the flood (which you suggested had to happen), people had to have advanced enough language, but not be spread out far enough around the Earth. When you found that they spread out before language was complex enough to convey this problem, you ended up glossing it over, said they must have known, etc. etc. You say "logically, this would have to happen for it to work". When someone shows you that it didn't, you abandon the idea of what logically has to happen, and just continue to assert that this flood happened. It's absurd. Your memory for things you yourself said does not stretch beyond one post, and you have absolutely no problem contradicting yourself from a previous post, and then going right back to the previous to contradict the later post. The worldwide flood did not happen. No good evidence for it has ever been found. In your bizarre non YEC but still world-wide flood belief here, it definitely does not work in any way shape or form. Yet you continue to believe it. Admit it's faith and nothing more, and we're done here. You remind me of Ken Ham in his debate with Nye, when asked what would change his mind. Nye said evidence. Ham, in a word, said "nothing". If good logical reasons to find the bible unreliable don't seem to phase you, that's fine by me. But don't go pretending that those logical reasons are flawed, and that logic and evidence actually support the bible. They don't. 

dating inconsistancy =  i expressed from day 1 that I could only "guess" at the date.. and with some discussion, the final conclusion was 2 million years.. which seems to fit the bill so far... again still a guess, but more of an estimate now based on information people like you provided on this thread.

language complex enough =  how complex does language have to be to warn people of impending death?  What proof of language progression do we have 2 million years ago or even sooner other than written language, which likely didn't happen until language had been consistently complex for some time prior and was determined that recording woudl be necessary for future generations.  ... no glossing here... though I do still adhere to the point that they likely already knew because at that time, there was no question of God from what we can tell.

So far, I've been redundant in this reply... proof that I do remember what was said and that it was not me that forgets the progression fo the conversation.  I am very careful of how I answer on these threads.. why?  because of this very post right here.. you can post anything you want to me and you know I'm not going to manipulate it to make it sound like you were ignorant.  I will keep it as it was.  I don't trust you or others to be the same with me.  So I cover my tracks... You can try again if you'd like though. I've played this game too many times for it to catch me off guard anymore. 

Here's the problem with your contradicting issue where I believe despite the evidence that doesn't exist.

Are you suggesting that i never said there was no evidence of this story?  

Are you suggesting that I never told you that my belief in this story is based outside of this story?

Are you suggesting that you really don't remember the progression fo the conversations and actually believe what you wrote above?

If you said yes to any of the above, then you should stop posting for a while with me and take the time to reread from the beginning.  

Honestly

Jabberwocky wrote:

I asked you to explain how you had a prayer answered (financial help) without influencing other peoples' decisions (considering that finances are 100% controlled by people in every way possible). You have failed to answer this question. If you were inspired to seek out help by your prayer, then you were inspired by an action of yours to proceed with another action. If god pushed you to do it, he has interfered with your free will. Tell me where my logic is wrong here if you wish to continue this particular line of argument. Also, understandable to not share personal details on a public forum. 

the decisions were already made before my prayers were answered... those decisions benefitted me because I happened to be working with teh companies that made those decisions.. so if anything maybe God influenced my decisions in the beginning to choose those companies.  why is that so hard for you to understand though?

jabberwocky wrote:

No, that would be the logical conclusion if god has pre-destined everyone's time and circumstances of death. If everyone dies "when it's their time" and god is responsible for that, you would literally have to say that these people would commit worse offenses than Hitler, Stalin, Jeffery Dahmer, any rapist, or murderer EVER, to say that their premature death is a net positive for the world. 

caposkia wrote:

... and it's true, you do have a belief that takes a far greater faith than mine.

What belief do I have that takes more faith than what you believe? Name one. 

it's all in your post I left above.    You are taking the death of an individual which happens roughly every second in this world and suggest that each one of them would have to be comparable to all those names above to make a positive change in their death... that's quite incredible if you ask me.  Why wouldn't the cumulative of many deaths equal a net positive rather than just the one?  There is abalance that is kept, but you're talking as if you know how all that works... that is quite an incredible belief.

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

If you mean via dictionary.com (the source we've both seemed to use here) 

dictionary.com wrote:

an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might havebeen, expected.

Now, I have to say that the reason that that's the final definition on that website is the same reason for the #4 definition on the same site of the word "literally" which ironically means NOT literally. That is what irony is. It's not a coincidence. We already have a word for that. It's "coincidence". The point of language is to communicate. If we compromise the precision of the words we use, it makes communication harder. What you're talking about is a coincidence. Please use the proper word! Also, as a Canadian, I apologize to all for Alanis Morisette misinforming the world on that one (even though it's not my job to do so). However, watch her parody of My Humps. I hope it redeems her as it is hilarious. 

Despite my rant, you have failed to answer my question. Finances are controlled by people. Your claim is that god helped you with your finances, without having been able to influence the decisions of people. I will even concede that it's not an argument against his omnipotence. Your god technically would have the ability to influence the decisions of people, but promised not to, and since he is an honest god, he doesn't do that. Your answer to that....let me quote that again

I believe I answered your question above, yuo still haven't answered mine.  I think now as you've posted the definition in questino taht it's not about coincidence.  Ironic is contrary to what you believe shoudl happen... in other words, too ironic is when a list of occurance happen that logically shouldn't happen so congruently.  So when does irony become too ironic to be... well... logical... is that a better way of saying it?

jabberwocky wrote:

You love trying to use people's own arguments against them, don't you! I mentioned this in another post/thread to you I believe (the not being able to prove you're a single real person part). However, I mentioned why I think you are. At the end of the day, it's inconsequential whether you are or not. You respond as one, and even use personal sounding anecdotes (such as the financial relief that prayer helped you with). This is consistent over several posts suggesting that you are one person (or creating the impression that you are). If you're more than one person and being deliberately dishonest, that is a reflection on you, not me. It is expected that forum users who claim to be one person are just that, rather than a collective. I'm really not too worried about being wrong, because all you could possibly say is that I was deceived by people who meant to deceive me, into something as inconsequential as believing that several people were actually one forum member. How embarassing!!!...or not. 

exactly.  I use what you give me to work with.  The idea is you're still having faith that I'm being honest with you about being one person... that I am being legit.  You have no proof other than a compilation of texts that you have deduced to be as you say...  Point and case, it's the very point that you're telling me is illogical to conclude on.

jabberwocky wrote:

Your god? The Christian god? If the Christian god is contingent on the bible being quite true (shit like world-wide floods happening, and the tower of babel story being true, as you have asserted elsewhere on this forum), then nothing. Those concepts are clearly disproven to me. Anything that can be called Christianity has to be attached to the bible to a point that I think is contradictory (either internally, or otheriwse with history and science) that it can't be true. If Christianity is a corruption of the true god, I would find it unlikely, but at least possible. If a god presented himself to me, and others I trust, who corroborated the visitation, and I was confirmed to not be suffering from delusion I might believe it. But every issue I have with the bible would have to be explained really. A tall order for a human. A breeze for an omnipotent god. 

well, you said it, there is nothing that would be obvious to you... an omnipotant God cannot give you nothing to prove to you His existence... it's contradictory and contradictions don't exist.  

Though your nothing is based on the Christian God and the Bible... what of just a God out there at all... any god, not associated with a denomination, religion or otherwise... would still there be anything obvious to you that would confirm to you that there really is a metaphysical God?  Would it have to be a physical manifestation as you seem to imply?  if not what?  If your answer to yourself is still nothing, then there really is nothing God can do to show you because you have determined that nothing will be obvious other than the physical, which is not God.  

Before you misrepresent this, read it carefully, I did post some complicated aspects here.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

HAH! What a crock! You're talking to someone who understood math before he understood English (And I have a better understanding of both than you I'm sure!). You can't see that 2+2=4 until you learn to count to 4. Every time you test two groups of two, it always, always, ALWAYS equals 4 (so long as you're counting in a number system that is base five or higher..and since we count in base ten, we're fine...and even if it's lower, it's still just as functional, just possibly less familiar). Once the concept is explained, it makes sense whenever tested, even though numbers are simply abstract arbitrary concepts. Math is logical, and useful in measuring things in the real world. The accuracy of these measurements is a testament to how good our math skills are. 

Your second paragraph says not 2+2=4, but x+x=god. You have determined the conclusion, but not the process. You have failed to outline the process time and time again. I addressed this below in a post of mine below I will bold for clarity.

the first paragraph is really just a more complicated version of what I said.  I understand math and how it works... you likely might know more than I about math.  I'm not contesting that.  the piont is what adds up to God

so 2nd paragraph.  the problem with determining the process is there is no one process, or a simple process like 2+2 for example.  it's not that easy.  As you know when you start getting into double and triple integrals, math can also be complicated really quickly.  You can have a long equation to come up with a very concise answer.  The furthest I've gotten in math was a 2 page equation for a cloud droplet at -32 degrees Celcius that would determine what weather it would cause.  i know there are other ways of going about it, but the point of the math was to show that there is a structured process to understanding it.  

Going back to the point, same with God.

jabberwocky wrote:

There was no particular part. Good to know. So you just accepted it randomly. You came to Christianity on no evidence, and didn't even attach yourself to any part of the oldest existing original claim (The bible) to do it. Good of you to admit that this is based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!

So how do you go with no particular part to no evidence?  No particular part doesn't mean I didn't read it.  I don't understand why you can't comprehend this.  I know most denominationalists have that "part' that they adhere to as their turning point... I'm sure your denominatinoalist past is reaching for that moment, but I honestly don't have one.  I did scientific, historical, archaeological and Biblical research... if you believe that's no evidence, then again, I will claim your faith is greater than mine becasue you believe more with less evidence than I.

Jabberwocky wrote:

You have explained the following

1. Animals used to be valuable, so to offer them as a burnt offering would be detrimental

2. That's what god wanted...I guess.

3. A human sacrifice actually orchestrated by god is somehow better

I asked you why sacrificing anything, in the way of subjecting a sentient creature to torture, solves ANY problem! You regurgitated doctrine again. Nothing more.

I regurgitaed scripture... what doctrine did I follow?

The creatures were actually killed, not tortured by the means that we would understand today.   None of it ever claimed to "solve a problem" rather it was the consequence and payment for your wrongdoing... it was like paying a fine.  

Consider that you have a pet you love.. not only were the livestock money and food for the people, they also loved their animals.  Now imagine you broke a law you knew.  The court ordered you as a penalty for your wrongdoing to instead of serving jail time, instead of giving the state money, you had to kill your pet... how likely do you think you and others would be to commit that crime again?   Most people today claim they'd never do it in the first place... think about that for a moment... let's put it in context of a speeding ticket.  how much slower do you think your commute to work would be?

Jabberwocky wrote:

You just cited the exact...same...verse...that was brought up to argue this. I just stated that given Thomas's evidence in the story, I would doubt less than him. I have not been given that evidence today. Until I beleve, I am condemned to hell. How is that ok? 

why do you keep associating your condemnation to hell with beilef?  it has nothing to do with belief, it has everything to do with your choices in life and actions.  Have you broken Gods laws?  and if so, do you assume they don't apply to you because you don't beleive?

the thing is, if God is real as Christians believe, then whether you believe it or not, you are responsible before God for what you do.  This is why fanatics get so in your face about it, (though that is the obvious wrong way to go about it)

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Sure. I haven't a single clue what you mean. I asked why vicarious redemption is a good thing, and effective as well. Why is torturing a sentient being relevant to another being's wrongdoings?

well the spirit of the law is what the law was originally intended for... e.g. rape laws were put in place to protect victims from attackers raping them and give them retribution when the wrongdoing is done to them.  This would apply to the age limit where adults try to seduce young teens or children.  However, people abuse the word of the law by trying to prosecute a consentual relationship between a 15 year old and an 18 year old because the law states that anyone age 18 or older cannot have relations with someone 17 or younger... (actual case).

that's what I meant by spirit of law to word of law.

now the point of the laws in teh OT is to prove that man cannot meet the expectations of God.  Rather than seeing that message, they thought that they could redeem themselves through redundant sacrifice... ultimately it ended up being so old hat that animal sacrifice turned into a way of life... 

God made a law with a specific consequence... because it became so common to sacrifice, God knew the only way to get through to the people was to turn the sacrifice into a human being... more specifically Jesus Christ.  To see a human as a sacrifice for others sins, that was outrageous.. but necessary to make the piont and get the message out.

jabberwocky wrote:

But you did. Let me quote it again

caposkia wrote:

 but the only reason why someone would not want to worship God is becuase they haven't accepted the gift of Jesus that God has given them.   They also probably have not come to terms with how sinful they are. 

You are asserting here quite blatantly that the reasons to not worship god are reluctance to accept this human sacrifice (which is senseless as I outlined above) and that they are deliberately doing evil shit, and convince themselves to actively supress belief rather than realizing an eternal consequence. That is the implication you have made about me by the above statement. That is a pretty wicked assertion to make about a human you've never met. Now, I don't think that you believe in Jesus as an avenue for forgiveness for the shitty things you do (but I also don't believe the opposite....I'm quite neutral on that). It's because I'm not a presumptuous asshole. I'm not saying that you are based on nothing. I'm saying based on your post that showed that you presumed just that about me.

I did not say "refuse to" I said "haven't accepted"  if you don't accept Jesus, you likely don't understand God and thus would not want to worship him... you're misinterpreting words here.

jabberwocky wrote:

What negative have my fun nights brought? I don't sleep with married (or any otherwise spoken for) women so long as I know that to be the case. What harm is there in 2 consenting adults having any kind of sex they want if they're not breaking a promise to anyone else?

On the other hand, I have outlined the harm above in abstinence only sex-ed. 

just because you have the morals doesn't mean others do... we are responsible for ourselves, but God has applied Law to all for a reason.  

 

caposkia wrote:

I understand your take on it, but to argue as you are, it might be beneficial to have some of that... I don't know what you'd call it... fake knowledge????

I don't see why. Greek mythology is so much more entertaining.  

Really?!?!?! Start the fucking presses because archaeologists have been trying to determine the origins of Hinduism for years and so far, can't even agree on a solid definition of what is and what isn't Hinduism. It is challenging because Hinduism doesn't rely on a specific god/goddess, it readily incorporates a number of them and worship doesn't necessitate belief in the actual existence of the deity. We can trace approximately when figurines and drawings of specific deities started being made, but most of Hinduism is in the cultural practices and philosophy, which is much harder. There is absolutely no clear origins of Hinduism. The oldest Hindu writing, the Rig Veda, was written sometime around 1500 BC. But that just proves that Hinduism was definitely around before that. Hinduism doesn't rely on any text the way that Judaism does. Also, unlike Judaism, Hinduism doesn't have its own origin story.

...What point and case is made? 

Biblican context is a strength of yours? Ok. How about this one?

matthew4:8 wrote:

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

In what context is it possible to see all of the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain when you consider the fact that the Earth is not flat?

John 1:18 and John 6:46

No man hath seen God at any time.

Not that any man hath seen the Father.

1st letter to John 4:12

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

Now, why is that a problem? Oh

Genesis 12:7

And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

Genesis 17:1

And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him....

Genesis 18:1

And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre.

Exodus 6:3

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob....

Do I need to continue? There are some more stating he hasn't and can't be seen, and many more stating he has. 

Well the sun didn't stop, rather it darkened. My mistake. 

45 From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land.

No other historian logged such an event either. Why wouldn't they?

Well then what does that mean? To me, that means that the gospel writers can't be deemed as reliable. If the gospel writers aren't reliable, then we can't trust the gospels to be reliable. Pretty simple. 

I don't care whether it's "not scientific" and is "the message of god". The gospels describing events that actually happened in history is a requirement for Christianity to be true. If those events didn't happen, then it's not. When they make statements about science and history, we are able to examine them. The scientific statements we can examine very exactly. The historical ones depend on what information remains from the time. The gospels have myriad issues with science and history, therefore it follows that the message is irrelevant if the facts are wrong. 

Verses brought up above...

was that before or after we decided on this thread that the time was most likely two million years ago or earlier possibly.  That's when language was brought up to not be developed enough... yet animals are able to convey danger or problems with extremely limited language through endless miles.  

If it was before the modified dating, then that's where you'd be wrong.  iF it was after, the development of language is:1.  literally a guess

2.  unknown at that time but theorized to be less than primitive. 

3.  not a factor be it that animals can do it.  

4.  also not a factor if Noah was capable of comprehending measurements and plans for building a boat.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

So god didn't affect their decisions, but he influenced yours? Then that means he has violated your free will! You really have trouble with this logic thing, don't you?

If god is unable to interfere with the free will of any human, than he can by extension not answer any prayers that require that a human makes a different decision than they otherwise would have without his intervention. What part of this don't you get?

you have trouble with logic when God is being talked about don't you... I prayed for a solution.. part of praying and being a Christian is willfully allowing God to influence decisions you make and circumstances in your life... the key word here is willfully... I can choose at any time to not allow God in, but why would I do that?  It's still my free will to allow my choice to be made or Gods.  

jabberwocky wrote:

That isn't a belief. That is a logical conclusion that would follow if god is always right about having certain people die. If he controls such things, you would have to concede something of that sort. At the very least, you would have to concede that this is the best he could possibly do. A world that in the last 150 years had Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Saddam Hussein, and today still contains a hideous regime in North Korea. You would have to suggest that all these premature tragic deaths are up to god, and this is the best he could do. The proposition that such a world is governed by an all-powerful and all-loving god is a ridiculous one because of that. 

it's a narrow conclusion.  Considering the Deaths, God allows them to happen... everyone is accountable for their own actions though... if anyone killed someone else, they haev to answer to God on that.  Some of those deaths might literally be to further condemn the sinner.  Basically, no way out.  Hitler's a great example be it that He was going after Gods people.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Now you're confusing me even more. What are you actually trying to ask me, and what did I fail to answer? Is your question "At which point is something so unlikely, that chalking it up to coincidence is absurd?". If that's your question, then I don't believe what you presented qualifies as even a bit of a stretch. You required a lighter financial burden, and you did what people normally should do in that situation (except for the praying. That was unnecessary). You called all those to whom you owe money, and explained your situation. They helped you in lieu of risking you going bankrupt (thereby risking receiving even less than they would if they slightly eased the financial burden). There is nothing unusual about any of that actually. If you prayed and they all called you one after the other shortly after, with no action from yourself, that might be something. However, such stories are typically exaggerated as well. 

your line of reasoning is logical except for one big thing... none of the people I called up were aware nor are they currently aware of my financial situation.  

jabberwocky wrote:

I don't care whether you're one person, or 4. I simply brought it up so that I can show you a short list of reasons why I believe that you're indeed one person. I am convinced that you're not a computer (ahh, the Turing test). What did I tell you is illogical now?

and likewise, i have such a list of reasons for my belief in God and the Bible.  Though slightly... well no... drastically more extensive.  Just like me with God, you have not seen me, yet believe based on what you know.  

jabberwocky wrote:

If something can present itself to me non-physically (however that would work) then that would be somehow possible. I'm not sure it is. If not, then it would have to be physically, yes. 

I do believe that Christianity in itself is conclusively disproven though, if Christianity is contingent on the bible being at least somewhat true. I am an agnostic atheist. However, I am a gnostic aChristian. I am certain that it's not true. The same goes for Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

the liklihood of something presenting itself to you non-physically... and you seeing it is not likely unless you have allowed God to open your eyes to it, but that would require a conscious choice based on an assumption that such an occurance was going to happen as an avenue of proof.  Physically is not logical unless you're looking for phyiscal results of Gods work, but then again, you'd have to believe that there was a metaphysical God out there that caused that physical occurance... that also is not likely in your case...  so it sounds like the issue then with you believing in God is your brain.  It is limited to phyiscal and visual, the here and now.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes, but even with double and triple integrals, the process is still logical, and they work to calculate things in the real world. You are proposing something that we disagree on existing in the real world (god). You are now saying that there are multiple ways to get there, but you can't present a single process, yet insist that your conclusion is correct regardless. Then you say "same with God" when it's not the same at all. One is a logical process that works and can be tested and demonstrated to work time and time again. The other is the complete opposite of that. 

there is still a logical structured process to God.  I won't present a "single" process because that process depends on the person... you have outrightly expressed to me that belief in a god is contingent on a non-physical manifestation or a physical occurance that you would somehow be able to associate with said god... I'm not sure how that would work with a non-believer be it that when I was, I could rationalize any occurance to be anything but a god.  I'm not sure if anything would work for you unless you're willing to expand your reasoning a bit beyond what you claimed.  

jabberwocky wrote:

You claim that the bible can be shown to be true. You claim that you have made this conclusion based on historical, scientific, and archaeological research. Then when asked what parts of the bible can be proven using these methods, you refuse to point to them. This isn't the first time you have refused this request either. If you continue that after this post, I will no longer respond to it, because it is worthless to argue with someone who is being so deliberately evasive. 

Also, once again, what is it that I believe that's more than what you believe on less evidence? 

bottom part first, you believe based on little that i believe based on nothing... that's quite extreme based on very little.  

when you asked me about what parts can be supported, I referenced a thread where I'm discussing that very thing... if I didn't I'm sorry.. I know i did in the last post.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

Why the hell would god need a fine? If you did something wrong, and you realized it (to the point that you might sacrifice an animal), wouldn't it be better to say "I will correct my behaviour, and not repeat this mistake in the future"? Also, since god knows all, he could know that you're being honest or not, correct? Why, if you are, would he say "ok, that's all well and good. Now kill this sheep that you love (and were going to cook next weekend too). That helps nobody. For those with well adjusted moral compasses, punishment is not a deterrent to crime. For those without, I don't believe it is either. The countries with the harsher legal systems typically have higher crime. 

Now, your specific questions. Very similar to what Hitchens said regarding the story of Abraham and Isaac. "If someone told me to do what every monotheist is told to do, and admire the man who said 'yes I'll gut my kid to show my love of god' I'd say 'no, fuck you!'". I feel as strongly of every pet I've had as one would of a child. I would not kill him for a god. Also, a loving god would not demand that, because the pet didn't commit the crime, did it? 

God doesn't need a fine, people do.  As far as realizing your crime, let's take a teen who beat up another kid becasue that kid did something they didn't like..  They realize it was wrong, they could say "I will correct my behaviour" but what exactly is it that is motivating them to correct that behavior?  nothing.  If it benefitted them and they knew it was wrong, but got no real consequence for it, why stop donig it?  

A loving God is a just God... what you're suggesting is that a loving God would never punish you for donig something wrong, is that true?  that's not very loving is it?  It's not the animals fault, it's yours... basically if you knew doing something would cost the life of your pet, would you do it or would you do everything you could not to do it?  The point was not to kill animals but to be a deterrent to the crimes.  

you would not kill him for a god... neither would I.  but we're not talking about just any god here.  The realization would be that this God created the very creature you have to kill.  There were many reasons at the time as to why this was so bad, but as time went on, ti became a routine thing because people always sinned... the idea of what it stood for got lost and it became tradition rather than conseqence.  Be it that the people during Moses' time had a very limited number of livestock and they were literally on their own severed from all other cultures, it is reasonable to conclude they didn't sin that much, either that or they would have had no animals left.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

God's law is vague. The many denominations of Christianity prove that any reading of the bible can come up with a different set of conclusions regarding what the rules actually are. So, if your god exists, I'm not sure if I've broken his laws. If he's real, and I've broken his laws, then logically they would apply to me whether I believe or not. However, if the laws are vague (which they are) I could plead ignorance on a number of them. Is my mixed-fabric shirt I'm wearing at this moment a crime? 

The perspective that the Laws are vague came to be with the progression of time because they were written for the people of that time... so then that's why Jesus made them very clear... He claimed in Mark 12 that all the Laws can be summed up in two main laws... Love your God with all your heart, mind and spirit and the second which is just as important is to love your neighbor as yourself... if you can keep those two, you have kept all the laws.   

So basically, it's about love... if you love others, you would not commit crimes against them as written in scripture.  

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

The last 2 paragraphs...wow. God made a law with a specific consequence? What was the consequence? Why were sacrifices necessary? I think I outlined above why the very concept is stupid. Then taking an animal sacrifice that worked only a bit, converting it to a human sacrifice, and that somehow saves everyone? Gibberish. 

of course it doesn't make sense to you, you don't know God.  You don't understand the Laws and you don't understand the Love and reason for Jesus' ministry.  If you did, it would all make sense.  It also had to do with God understanding what we're going through.  

So you're saying that it's not deliberate, but it has to do with accepting? Regardless, your second sentence implies explicitly that people don't accept him because they want to do awful things. 

I need sources. Because everything I have ever read about Hinduism is that we have evidence of religious idols back as far as 5500 BCE and no one has a clue how long the traditions had been passed down orally. About 3500 years before Abraham existed if he existed at all. 

And that is relevant how? Is a religion only legitimate if it steals its stories from other cultures and rewrites them to declare themselves God's "Chosen"?

How could the belief system exist prior to Abraham? From what I understand, pretty much every scholar on the subject considers Abraham the beginning of Judaism whether he was real or not, and the general consensus is that he existed or the story of him was created sometime around 1800-2000 BCE. Am I wrong? 

So you have just said that the evidence points to Hinduism being older than Judaism, as 5000 years ago is about 3000BCE, whereas 10th century BC is about 2000 years after that. Those are the oldest dates for evidence found for either. It is beyond unlikely that Judaism existed for another 2000 years in any recognizeable way before that while leaving behind no evidence as Hinduism has. You said (earlier in this string of messages) that you haven't found an origin for Judaism as you have for Hinduism. That is blatantly false. We actually don't have concrete origins for either. However, when you consider the evidence we have found, it suggests that Hinduism is older than Judaism (and I'm not talking about "in name". I'm talking about origin of belief). Do you agree that that's probably the case due to the evidence?

Because it's evasive. You're saying that god is capable of anything, but we get to choose. I choose that if there is a place of eternal torture, and all I have to do to avoid it is to believe in a god who is actually righteous (an attribute I would not use to describe the god of the bible) then I would. If your god is real, he knows this, but fails to present himself to me. If your god is real, he has left my salvation to either severe brain damage (which might cause me to change course), or for me to genuinely believe in him on no evidence FIRST (which for me is currently impossible) before he will show himself to me. That's why it's stupid.  Also, you can repeat complete nonsense to yourself for a while, and it starts to sound more plausible after a while. It's a glitch in the human brain. If I wanted to, I could slightly believe in the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I couldn't ever fully believe it because I have deliberately bound myself to follow evidence where it leads. However, if I wrote some nice prayers (preferably songs that rhyme, because that works better in terms of getting stuck in our heads), I wouldn't believe it exists, but it would feel more real to me because I've thought about it so much. This is how our brains work (and is why they're prone to believing in false things). 

People speak to me. How do I discern between "His people" and those who aren't? Don't say "those who claim they are" because that would mean that I could claim the same. I think those who claim to be are lying, or dishonest. 

Events in my life occur for reasons I can discern and don't require a supernatural agent. 

"Other numerous ways" is vague, so I can't comment on that. 

I tried. Hard. Didn't work. Your assertion that my effort is all that's required is an assertion that my effort was inadequate or dishonest. It wasn't. Even though I sound emotionally detached from that now, it's because it's been many years. It wasn't easy to let that go, but I did because it made no sense, and when I honestly called out to your god, he didn't present himself.

You said it must have been 2 million years ago or so due to population spread. Then you say that some homo-erectus were humans, and some not. Presumably, the ones you believe do bear more similarity (and are probably more recent, as that species dates from ~150 000 years ago to 1.9mya. Also to imply "carbon dating which can be quite flawed", research how radiometric dating works. Research how carbon-dating specifically works. Research what ranges it works in. Research why young earth creationist improper application of it comes up with wacky dates.  Until you do, don't fucking say such stupid shit. Every single time you assert something about science being wrong, it's regurgitated young earth creationist horse-shit, yet you claim they're wrong. 

I went through that a bit. You keep on asserting that any time someone says that your story didn't happen, you repeatedly assert that a "little bit of evidence" (a bible verse) is better than no evidence. Then you say until someone can tell you what happened in that time and place instead of what the bible says, we should accept the bible account as true. You would never give that sort of authority to any book ever. I know that for sure. Imagine I ask "what do you think my dog does while I'm at work?" and then you say "gets out of the pen, watches TV all day". I would call bullshit. You would say unless I have a legitimate alternate timeline, I'm wrong. My timeline is that my dog will typically, eat, sleep, drink water, lick balls, clean self, chew a bone. I can evidence this by bite marks, less food/water, blankets on his bed moved about. You say "nope, something far crazier than that happened."

My alternate timeline for places/times with stories in the bible? Shit that isn't in any way supernatural, because like we have no evidence for tiny dogs leaving large-ish cages to watch TV, we have no evidence for any supernatural events. This is the claim you are making, and we have gotten absolutely 0 inches closer since the beginning of the thread. Due to your refusal to provide me with a verse (as I requested) as soon as I'm done responding to everything above this post, I'm done. You contradict your own earlier posts, agree with science and history when it agrees with your book (and question it when it doesn't), and insult the moral values of every non-believer on the planet in the name of a fictional tyrant that were you to read of those works done by anyone who doesn't go by the names Yahweh/Yeshua/Jehovah, you would say the same thing every atheist does; that character in that book is a piece of shit. 

That explains how I can get through some of your garbled bullshit, that's all. I'm still far clearer thinking drunk than many people sober (although there's always a limit). Also, no you don't back track a lot. You delete quotes that are necessary for single-post context, and contradict something you deleted 5 minutes prior. 

You didn't. You just didn't address it while addressing all the other issues. Either way, we're done. They say unicorns. Where does it imply ox?

 

As I said above...nothing else to talk about. Metaphysical existence is a cop out. The bible mentions repeadetly situations where god manifests in the physical world. Until you can prove one instance of the bible's saying that as true, or that it happens today, there is no reason to believe in such an agent. Harry Potter can seem like fact too rather than fiction if you believe in witchcraft with organized education systems. Such...such bullshit. 

All of those symptoms of possession can also manifest in mental illness, such as schizophrenia, (which is serious and should be left to professionals. Everyone suggesting possession is endangering the patient AND The public.) 

Deleted context again. You implied what I said you implied. Backpedalling. Dishonest. Typical Christian BS to support their claim.

So a 4 year old growing up in Saudi Arabia to Muslim parents is responsible for apostasy, and deserves and will get eternal torture. K, got it. Don't give me "when they're adults" either. Adults are far more likely to either retain their religion, or drop it rather than convert to another. It's just how our brains work.

Jabberwocky wrote:

numerous times you've used the "you've avoided this or that" excuse when i have repeatedly expressed not only that I didn't avoid anything, but I further challenged you to bring it up again so that you can be sure that I am cornered and can't avoid what I'm allegedly trying to avoid.  Make me face it if you truly believe I'm avoiding something.  I never meant that you avoided anything... at least in the last post.  You have avoided however to restate a lot of what you claimed I avoided.  With such extensive posts, it shouldn't be too inconvenient on your part to restate it, or cut and paste if you have several tabs open.  

I mean honestly, this statement right here should be proof to you that I've never intentionally avoided anything, but you're entitled to believe what you want.  

Blaming me for doing what I'm blaming you for doing. Typical Caposkia. It's getting tiring. 

If it wasn't from the mountain, then why go to the top of a mountain in the first place? Why not just do it where they were? Why not a forest? A cave? Somewhere isolated? Because the people who wrote the book thought that it was a plausible scenario that one could see the whole world from a mountain were the thing high enough. That's why. They could have literally had this showing occur anywhere else, but they chose a mountain. Can you think of another reason? 

Are there translations that imply something else? biblegateway has 46 of them. Check them. You'd figure someone would get it right by now. While my 2 native languages are both European, one is Slavic, so quite far from English. Some things are difficult to translate, but there is no way that a concept like "appearing" to someone can be completely untranslateable in a concise way. 

So no historian heard about it from others who were there? Nobody? The whole earth sort of shares the same sun too, so that's a problem for your "non-localized" bit. 

So if they got these details wrong, what reason do you have to believe they got the important ones correct?

I don't care if the overwhelming theme is not scientific or the message of god. The point is, as I said, the bible makes specific claims. Many are proved wrong. It hurts the reliability of the document for every single thing you prove wrong. There is no reason to believe the book is true. I think I've exhausted my patience completely now with someone who refuses to accept any evidence that goes against their pre-conceived conclusion. 

Again, If I'm so blatantly guessing or illogical or dumb as you seem to believe I am, what is that saying about you still talking to me?  Honestly, if you don't think I'm being legit or honest, stop talking to me.  It's not worth your time with people like that.

What woudl you say would be "producing enough sounds" be it that an ancient creature we today call Whales are known to have extremely complex language... even to the point of having different dialects depending on what group they're a part of.  Also, what would make a creature "anatomically capable"?

well, this also goes back to what was lost and what was gained since the flood... granted you must consider that if all life except what was on the ark was wiped out, then there must have been a technological and evolutionary fallback due to such a drastic event... how can we be sure what existed then if we haven't even found the evidence for the flood?  Again we took a guess at  million... it seems to fit everything so far and your reasoning besides it not being referenced seems to be... what was it?  Oh yea, "random ass guessing"..

Did you read your link? It restates exactly what I said. Hinduism dates to at least from 5500 BC and even the definition of Hinduism is not easily defined. Where in that do you get this "clear" origin? And no, 5500 BC is over 5000 years before the story was written. It is 3500 years before it is believed that Abraham existed. 

I would think that if there was a true god, that the origins of humanity would be extremely clear and the book made by that god would be 100% accurate in relaying the story.

Personally, I neither know nor care whether Abraham existed at all. Like I said, that is a region and time in history that bores me to tears so I never put much effort into it. From what I have read, virtually every scholar who does study it dates it around 2,000 BC and that is enough for me. 

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/amen/a/122710-CW-Archaeological-Evidence-About-The-Story-Of-Abraham-In-The-Bible.htm

    This is something  On this board;  the board has a life of its' own ..

 

  Security Alerts and Spidey Senses are telling me this post is a mistake.  I keep getting these windows popping up to tell me to Resolve these problems .. security alerts, maybe I shouldnt ask at all! Alerts are crippling this machine (~Double meaning)

   Once hidden sin which often takes place peculiarly in certain Christian form(s) in churches. It is burdensome, LETHALLY plausible and tragically lengthening the road home. With it's often a rife sea  of stumbling blocks  and deep wells of hurt. Can you guess what that might be ? How sad for you all, When One's freedom  is a threat  to Your legalism ..  Calender date of  May 26, 2014, in the Year of Our Lord 2014  was  Memorial Day in the United States of America. 

---

---

Hey  Cap (Smile),   You never did explain your position, you're not taking lessons from me, now are you ?!?

 

 Re :: You (Cap) indicated disagreeing w/ dispensationalists in about 5-9 places

  Taking Care of Business . . .

 

Not to spend too much time on one item of discussion but I was anxiously curious about what justifies your interpretation, you've developed Cap ??

danatemporary wrote:

You cannot start with the Last and Final Judgment, (remember) ? Least not to mention, the general lack of essential specificity in the wording and language of some of the key passages. We do not know enough details about what the topography should signify, nor importantly who WAS in the prison of these 'spirits' that Christ went to preach to (and sorry no parable is enough by way to truly clarify).

 

caposkia wrote:

If you read the book of revelation, everyone comes back for judgement. Some believe that when Jesus died, He died for all, even for those who died before his coming. If this is true, then..

Do you mind to be outlining a bit taking into consideration Christ's Descent into Hell & also Graves opening up, if you read the text, correct ? To refuse to do so contributes to a wrong view, IMO. Caposkia wrote {caposkia wrote }: "If you read the Book of Revelation, everyone comes back for judgement. Some believe that when Jesus died, He died for all, even for those who died before his coming. If this is true, then in the time of judgement, these people have a choice to make. Is that unjust?". BeyondSaving Replied: "Yes. No crime is worth eternal punishment" : See :: Image

Ancient Chinese Secret (tehe) 2 Cor. -- .. But I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses.

Hi Dana, I'm not ignoring the rest of your post, but I figured I'd respond directly here.  I have to admit, it's a bit hard to follow your posts sometimes.  Please help me if I misunderstood what you were asking.

From what  I understand from this, you want me to expand a bit on my understanding of:

1. Jesus decending into Hell

2. graves opening up. 

is that everything up to this point?  If I missed something, again please let me know

For the first point about Jesus decending into Hell.  I had trouble understanding this for the longest time myself.  I've gotten many different explanations including; 'becuase Jesus took on the sins of the world, God could not have been just to let Him go anywhere else' and 'it was just for a short time to prove He could come back from anything' etc.  Those two views I do not agree wtih.

The first reason for that is if you look in the Greek NT, not once will you find the word "Hell"... That word is never used in the whole of the NT.  It is the understanding of many experts I talked to that the Hell being referred to what Jesus was going through at the time, his emotions, physical status, etc.  That makes a little more sense, but it seems that this happened after His death.

Many verses that translate"hell" in English in the NT are actually referring to the place where all the dead go.  So it is my understanding that Jesus "officially" died.  The point of stating that is to suggest that Jesus went where all others go when they die, which would nto have been possible if Jesus survived or did not die but just went to heaven.    I see it as emphasis in scripture that despite a lot of skeptics belief on the subject, Jesus actually fully and completely died on the cross.

for the second point of graves opening up.  I believe that is what it is.  I think that as scripture says the graves will open up and people be alive again.  Now will that look like a Night of the Living Dead scenario?  we could only speculate be it that this prophesy has not come to be yet.  I'm not sure what that's going to look like when it happens.  it could be a literal opening up where people crawl up through the dirt in their bodies, but what of the cremated?  I think more so that all who have died will be walking around alive and physical... they moreso might just kind of be there, whatever resurrection might look like.  It's hard for me to believe that God would make people alive again when they're still buried so that they have to dig their way out.  

I don't know if that quite answers what you're looking for, but please let me know if you're looking for more detail or something different. 

Wow! I've never seen denial to this level before. It's not a logical place at all if the planet is round, as some of these kingdoms are not visible. Somewhat logical would be to go to space, and unbind yourself from the Earth's rotation. That would allow you to see it all in about...oh 24 hours. However, people then had no concept of that. If god or Jesus told the writers of the bible, they would have said it's not a mountain. If it said they floated up to the firmament, I'd be even more impressed (still not very, though). The reason they never said space was because it was thought by people back then that the universe was far more local than it is. The bible rarely (if ever) suggests a universe of the scale we know it actually is. This suggests that this was written by men of the time with no supernatural intervention. Every time the bible comments on the shape of the earth, it is said to be flat (minus the mentions of topography such as mountains). Even the oft-used Isaiah verse suggests that. This is because it was written by stupid barbaric men ~1900-2500 years ago. No need to embarass yourself further.

Ok. Those suggest him appearing unto Abram in Genesis 12:7. The Exodus 3 line seem to suggest that god simply spoke from the burning bush, not that he was it. It says that the angel appeared, but god merely spoke from the bush, suggesting it an audio-only event. I restate my question; why use the word "appeared?" You are stating that I am misinterpreting it. Is there something that you know about the Hebrew that suggests it? Or are you just hoping so because it keeps your bible inerrant if you say "they probably meant something far different than what seems to be written"?

Do they mention cloudy weather in the bible? Why say that the sun darkened, instead of saying "it got cloudy all of a sudden"? Once again. You are taking words in a number of English and Polish translations, and attempting to make them mean something far different than what they seem to imply, only because by going into this mode of extremely loose interpretation can it possibly be inerrant (and even then....I doubt it). You have made up your mind that it is inerrant, and resort to mangling language (our best form of communication) to maintain that illusion in your own head.

No they weren't. The census (which you called a "consensus&quot was described in a way that no historian has ever described a census (requiring return to ones hometown). Either the writers got the time wrong, or the governor of Syria wrong (as Quirinius was not governor at that time). Neither in that time, nor during the reign of Quirinius (to cover both bases) has there been a record of anything resembling what the bible describes. That is not what I would call consistent. You are suggesting that these people are reliable, but they get some pretty serious details wrong. The more likely origin of this fabricated story is to put the birth of "Jesus of Nazareth" into Bethlehem (the city of David) so that it matches the old testament prophecy. It's a clear fabrication, and if you can't see that, you are deluding yourself. 

Just outlined above re: census. That's more than a mere date discrepancy. The entire situation that put Jesus' birth in Bethlehem in the book is based on something that is a complete fabrication. If he's not born in Bethlehem, the old testament is wrong about the Messiah having to be. That's why the census story was made up. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Wow! I've never seen denial to this level before. It's not a logical place at all if the planet is round, as some of these kingdoms are not visible. Somewhat logical would be to go to space, and unbind yourself from the Earth's rotation. That would allow you to see it all in about...oh 24 hours. However, people then had no concept of that. If god or Jesus told the writers of the bible, they would have said it's not a mountain. If it said they floated up to the firmament, I'd be even more impressed (still not very, though). The reason they never said space was because it was thought by people back then that the universe was far more local than it is. The bible rarely (if ever) suggests a universe of the scale we know it actually is. This suggests that this was written by men of the time with no supernatural intervention. Every time the bible comments on the shape of the earth, it is said to be flat (minus the mentions of topography such as mountains). Even the oft-used Isaiah verse suggests that. This is because it was written by stupid barbaric men ~1900-2500 years ago. No need to embarass yourself further.

So I show you likely perspective and you see it as denial. Who's embarrassing themselves? Basically you explained it well above, ti was written by people with a very limited perspective of the world... logically I would have said mountain too with a limited understanding and needing to explain that Jesus was able to see all kingdoms from a perspective. Again jesus told the stories... people took it upon their own initiative to write it... Jesus likely in this scenario said; '...and Satan showed me all the kingdoms of the Earth.' and someone understood that to be a trip to a top of the mountain to see them. otherwise during that time, such an observation would be impossible. I still agree with you when you say that the scripture was written by men of the time with likely no supernatural intervention, just their personal experiences and understandings of the situation. That is common of writings during that time. These peoples credibiilty is what needs to be considered.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Ok. Those suggest him appearing unto Abram in Genesis 12:7. The Exodus 3 line seem to suggest that god simply spoke from the burning bush, not that he was it. It says that the angel appeared, but god merely spoke from the bush, suggesting it an audio-only event. I restate my question; why use the word "appeared?" You are stating that I am misinterpreting it. Is there something that you know about the Hebrew that suggests it? Or are you just hoping so because it keeps your bible inerrant if you say "they probably meant something far different than what seems to be written"?

 

I read the original words and their meanings in Hebrew, then I parse the context. But in this case, I don't believe there is any point where it specifically says "The Lord appeared" or any reference to God Himself appearing. I see in Ex. 3:2 it says; "The angel fo the Lord appeared". Following down to verse four, it says in my Bible that God called to him, but it does not say appeared there... if another version used the word appear, I dont' understand why. Or were you asking why it mentioned that the angel appeared?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Do they mention cloudy weather in the bible? Why say that the sun darkened, instead of saying "it got cloudy all of a sudden"? Once again. You are taking words in a number of English and Polish translations, and attempting to make them mean something far different than what they seem to imply, only because by going into this mode of extremely loose interpretation can it possibly be inerrant (and even then....I doubt it). You have made up your mind that it is inerrant, and resort to mangling language (our best form of communication) to maintain that illusion in your own head.

stop trying to convince yourself I've made up my mind... i have made up my mind as much as you've made up yours most likely. If you're open to new ideas, so am I... honestly I really am open to new ideas. all references to clouds I've seen in the Bible are usually in reference to heaven in some way, or getting caught up in the clouds like Jesus did when he ascended into heaven. IN general it can be a cloudy day, but stil bright, then it can be cloudy and dark. From an ancient persons perspective it is logical that on a darker day, they would reference to the sun darkening, not the clouds getting thicker... they may not have had that understanding.

Jabberwocky wrote:

No they weren't. The census (which you called a "consensus&quot was described in a way that no historian has ever described a census (requiring return to ones hometown). Either the writers got the time wrong, or the governor of Syria wrong (as Quirinius was not governor at that time). Neither in that time, nor during the reign of Quirinius (to cover both bases) has there been a record of anything resembling what the bible describes. That is not what I would call consistent. You are suggesting that these people are reliable, but they get some pretty serious details wrong. The more likely origin of this fabricated story is to put the birth of "Jesus of Nazareth" into Bethlehem (the city of David) so that it matches the old testament prophecy. It's a clear fabrication, and if you can't see that, you are deluding yourself. 

if what you say is true, then it would be super clear to those living in the time reading it... but it seems they didn't see it as false. There is a lot of discussion around the census... funny I wrote it the other way. must have been late. it is understood that the writer was familiar with the practice of Rome at the writers time and nto necessarily the practices of all the lands.. The writer is likely not aware of exactly why they were traveling during such a late point in her pregnancy and deduced that it was mandated by the king somehow... one thing that would mandate people to travel would be a census in Rome. If they are away, they are required to return so they can be accounted for. The core details of the story are consistent. Was the point of the story that there was a census, or that they were not home when Jesus was born?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Just outlined above re: census. That's more than a mere date discrepancy. The entire situation that put Jesus' birth in Bethlehem in the book is based on something that is a complete fabrication. If he's not born in Bethlehem, the old testament is wrong about the Messiah having to be. That's why the census story was made up. 

 

pretty sure He was... the reason is not as clear. The census as discussed is likely not the reason. The writer could not deduce any other reason for being out of town.

Jabberwocky wrote:

You. You are embarassing yourself. Let's consider the credibility of the writers. They got details wrong, because they didn't witness these events. They are receiving second hand information at best. Is that sufficient to trust their testimony? I don't think so. 

I don't feel the slightest bit embarassed.  Here's why.  Let's definitely consider the credibility of the writers... they got details wrong... details that anyone in their shoes would get wrong.   In this case, they heard the information from the horses mouth... but not how it happened, just what happened. 

Why is it so important to understand how Jesus saw all the kingdoms of the world?  Isn't the ponit that He did and was offered dominion over all of them???  if not, then what was?

They are receiving second hand information from the subject of the NT Jesus Christ.  Some actually do get second hand information, but unlike second hand information you can get today, it was very accurate... Did you ever question why they crucified Jesus?  Well consider that if you portray what would be considered important information and it is found to be false, you can be killed for it during that time... do you think these writers really wanted to die for this if it was false? 

Jabberwocky wrote:

That's exactly what I said. The angel appeared there, not god. Would you say that Moses never saw the angel? Probably not, because it doesn't say anywhere in the bible that angels can't be seen (at least I don't think it does). So that use of the word "appeared" suggests exactly what it says. Now when the bible uses the word appeared in Genesis, like the Lord appearing to Abraham (forgot which verse I quoted above, so let's go with Gen 18:1, as it's the first one I found googling the phrase). Is there any variation in the Hebrew between how they describe the angel appearing to Moses, and how they describe the Lord appearing to a number of individuals in Genesis? Because if not, that suggests that it is precisely what the bible meant, but the new testament writers (for example, whoever wrote the gospel of John) made a tiny huge mistake. You seem to be convinced that the old testament account meant something else by it just because it must, lest it be later contradicted. However, you probably never would have said that "The angel of the Lord appeared" didn't mean quite literally that.

 

You claim to have studied Hebrew. Can you show me that every instance of the Lord appearing in Genesis to someone means that he didn't actually? Can you show me where the Hebrew varies when you compare the angel's appearances to the Lord's himself? If not, the bible simply contains a very gigantic contradiction regarding whether or not God has been(or can be) seen. If you can not demonstrate that in the instances of god, "appeared" meant something else, or that "appeared" NEVER actually meant what it implies, then you are simply making excuses for the bible, and as it stands, it is interally incoherent. 

let's see

looking imediately at the Hebrew there are different structures there... Gen eighteen:one says ...and He is appearing to him [וַיֵּרָ֤א אֵלָיו֙]... referring to God appearing as best described in English.. The difference in Exodus is:  ...and a messenger of Him appeared to him [וַ֠יֵּרָא מַלְאַ֨ךְ].  referring to a messenger of God... an angel.  One past tense, one present. 

Here they seem to sound the same, but the difference is in the context here, not so much the language... if you read further in Genesis eighteen, it says:  'and he is lifting eyes of him, and he is seeing and behold, three mortals."  this from verse 2. So right here this shows that though God "appeared" He wasn't seen, rather the Hebrew indicates that first Abraham was aware of the presence of God without looking... and when Abraham looked up he saw "three mortals" and the Hebrew was specific in saying; "mortals" to indicate that the three beings Abraham saw were definitely not God himself... Reading futher somehow he is aware though that they represent God... how?  i dont' know.. who were the three figures Abraham saw?  that I'm not sure of eitehr, but what's important is that Abraham saw them and knew they represented the presence of God.   

In conclusion, we have to look beyond the particular verse to see clear indications that God himself was never seen in this instance... The English Bibles don't seem to specify 'mortals' but the Hebrew is specific... the English mentions three men... I gues God isnt' considered a man and so it's implied, but I think it would have been clearer if they were a little more literal. 

What other parts do you want me to analyze? 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

So you're suggesting that they are dumb enough to not know that the darkness in the sky is clouds (even though you can see them progressively forming) but they are smart enough to get right the most important facts in the world regarding supernatural entities? You said above that you don't believe they had supernatural help to write the thing, so that rules that out. 

They were inspired by God whatever you think that might mean.  I say the supernatural help would have been the situation being written about or the image that they got to write about, but the writing itself came from the person alone.  Granted they likely saw clouds forming, but consider you don't understand how clouds can form and tower... consider that once a cloud forms if it gets darker, you would assume more than just a cloud covering the sky is happening.  There were no planes or satalites to observe that it could have been a supercell if it were that caused the darkness.  let's consider too that their mode of expertise was not meteorology... I'm pretty sure the science of meteorology was quite limited then.  They did know a lot about the supernatural though so it does make sense that they would get that information right...

I also wouldn't call it "dumb"... consider that a doctor is not dumb because He doesn't understand what a lawyer does, rather it's just not his focus of expertise, likewise i woudl not want a lawyer performing a triple bypass on me.  It doesn't mean the lawyer is dumb, they just don't understand medical knowledge beyond the law. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

How much access did people ~40 years after the events of the bible have to written history? It's probable that they had little to none. Anyone could easily assert that a certain governor did things a certain way, and these people had no way to verify it. 

The point of the story was to place the birth of "Jesus of Nazareth" into Bethlehem to make a prophecy from the old testament true that wouldn't otherwise work. The circumstances surrounding their trip to Bethelem as written in the gospel of Luke are suspicious for a number of reasons.

1. Quirinius wasn't the governor of Syria during the range of years that this story is said to have taken place during.

2. No historical document indicating any census around that time and place has been uncovered that required one to return to their place of birth. 

3. Neither during the reign of Quirinius, or in the years that the story was said to have taken place (approximately 2BCE to 5CE if I recall correctly), was there a record of a census.

Fabricating such details suggests to me that it was important for theological reasons to place Jesus's birth in Bethlehem, even though he was understood to have been from Nazareth. 

you seem to imply they wrote Jesus into Bethlehem rather than using facts... good perspective except that most people reading the writing when it first came out would have been aware of Jesus' birth location be it that those things were typically recorded by the families.  The governor of the time likely represents the governor during the time of the writer.  The census is likely in reference to the census done in Rome and the writer likely assume that's why Jesus was not in Jerusalem. 

So not fabricating... deducing based on current events.  That is a common theme not only in the Bible, but in many ancient writings that depict the past in the writers time. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

So once again let me ask you the same question that you have yet to properly address. If the writers of the gospel got such details wrong (especially THAT wrong, considering the points I brought up above in the 3 point list), how are we supposed to accept the reliability of the rest of it?

regardless of why things happened the way they did, the  point of the story is that things happened the way they did.  Again this is not uncommon of ancient writings talking about the past.  Consider any other ancient text that is written in the future of what is being depicted and see if you find that common theme... I'd be surprised if you didn't. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

They heard the information from the horse's mouth? The gospel writers are unanimously understood by historians to be anonymous. The times in which they were written are understood to be:

Mark: ~66-70CE

Matthew and Luke: ~80-90CE

John (the one with the most fantastic claims of all): ~90-100CE

So are you suggesting that these were written all by witnesses? Firstly, why wait 30 years if it's so important? Also, what of the Q-source? To my knowledge, a far greater number of historians agree with its existence than not. I don't believe your assertion that these were written by eyewitnesses to the events. 

No, they're not understood to be anonymous.  Some are not known, but some are known to have personally known Jesus... why wait thirty years to actually have it offiicially written down?  I don't know, maybe the lack of access to word processors.  You must take into consideration how difficult it was to get something officially written during that time... Today, publishing could take up to one year... then... without actual direct means of documentation, thirty doesn't sound too unreasonable. 

The Q source.  That applies to particular gospels and is said to be a source, likely from an eye-witness, but no one knows.  It's what's called the synoptic problem.  The reason why the gospels sound so identical is because a few of the books used Q as a source. 

...and they're not assertions, nor are they mine... google it.

Jabberwocky wrote:

I don't care what the point of the story is.

then the rest of what you have to say doesn't really matter then.  What's the point of discussing this if we're not discussing the point?

Jabberwocky wrote:

The point of this story is that Jesus was offered dominion of all the kingdoms by Satan, and didn't fall to temptation, yes. Of course, that misses the obvious point that the bible also says that Jesus is god, and must have known so, therefore knew he had dominion over everything anyway making any such temptation utterly pointless. Jesus is supposed to be a man, and god simultaneously. The bible seems to be confused, and makes him not god when it suits the verse. The incoherence reminds me of your posts, and how whenever they DO make sense, they only do in a vacuum (and contradict things you had said earlier). 

Just to clarify "a point" here.  Jesus is understood to be all God and all man... in the moment of the temptations, Jesus had been made "a little lower than angels" [Hebrews 2:9] thus he would not have had that dominion at the time.  Of course Jesus the man knew over a great deal of tiem He would and thus did not take the current temptation, but the bible also says that Satan runs the kingdoms of the world. [2 Corinthians 2:4] This is the only way Satan could offer the dominion of them to Jesus. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

The point of the story doesn't matter though, does it? If someone got that detail wrong, that can mean one of three things:

1. The writers took artistic license with these issues (which therefore means they could be taking other liberties as well, and misrepresenting absolutely everything), or

2. God lied

3. The earth is flat and we're all really really stupid. 

those are some very random conclusions.  The point is really all taht matters be it that it's the very reason why the story was written down.  Again if the piont doesn't matter to you then there's nothing else to discuss. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

There is no indication that these writers knew Jesus. They were anonymous and the dates during which they were written, and other details (like the Q-source mention above) suggest that they were not eyewitnesses at all.

Then you go and assert, for the millionth time, that second hand information was more accurate back then for some reason. 

As far as going to die for it, they didn't die for something they thought was false (although some may have. Joseph Smith did exactly that). They died for something they were fooled into believing was true. Joseph Smith did it on purpose. I don't have an opinion on whether Christianity was started by delusion or by deliberate charlatanry, but it doesn't matter. One person, or a small group of people, convinced a large group, and that was that. It happens all the time in history. I have mentioned this to you before, and you have failed to explain to me how this situation differs. 

So... they didn't die for a statement that was false [my quote from an earlier post] yet you say although some may have... ok... You claim I assert second hand information was more accurate.... for some reason that I must have somehow deleted after I posted.... nope, it's still there... You did little research on the origins of the story and base your agument of the anonymity you claim of the writers of the gospels...  who has contradiction problems??? 

Let's go through this:

You claim there is no indication these writers knew Jesus.... except for the writers by literary style and direct claims who actually wrote some of the gospels were known to have walked with Jesus like Peter.  Those who didn't know Jesus directly knew those who walked with Him... John Mark for example. 

You also keep bringing up the Q source... be it that we don't know what the Q source is you cannot claim that the source used was not an eye-witness account... and if they're using an eye-witness account, I'd say the point of the must still gets across be it that both gospels that use Q seem to be almost identical.  IT is also known that both those authors, one of them not known for sure were likely not eye-witness accounts, but John Mark knew Peter and Peter helped arrange and shape the gospel Mark [zondervan study]

Jabberwocky wrote:

Is this the case with every instance of god being portrayed as having appeared to someone in the old testament? Anyways, how about Genesis 12:7? The NASB says it twice, and there is no mention of any other apparition standing in god's place.

probably, i haven't looked them all up.  I have yet to see a verse that actually originally stated that God Himself appeared to someone... only that He was in their presence.

Genesis twelve seven uses "and appeared" וַיֵּרָ֤א.  The same word as the other verses questioned... This however doesn't go into detail about whether Abram looked up, or saw anything, just that God "appeared".  There's no reason to suggest that the human Abram saw God in that moment as consistent with any other moment where more detail is given.  To confirm, Going to Genesis 15  It talks about a visual presence of God, but again, a figure is not see, but a hovering flame.  so again, something that represented the presence of God was seen, but not God himself. 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

They were dumb enough to not know what a cloud is in your estimation. Now the part I bolded is extremely dumb. They knew a lot about the supernatural??? How do you figure that?

the same way I figure a lawyer isn't dumb, yet I wouldn't trust them to do open heart surgery on me.  Those who know God know something about the supernatural.  It seems many gods were known in the time and thus the supernatural was not an unfamiliar territory for most people of that time.

Jabberwocky wrote:

Yes I imply exactly that. What you are implying is that someone in 1st century Judea could pop into the hall of records and look this shit up. Also, you imply that everyone could read (nothing close to guaranteed back then). So why the actual fuck would they go to Bethlehem if not for a census that we know never happened? 

uh, no I never implied either of your claims above.. to the contrary.  IN fact, your second assertion further confirms why it might have taken thirty years to get officially written... it was likely an afterthought be it that most people got their information by word of mouth... why?  they couldn't read.  Wait, that also further confirms why word of mouth is seen as much more accurate at that time and thus is also punished more severely if wrong.  

why would they go to Bethlehem?  I don't know, but records show they did... the writers thought was a census... They used information they knew took place in their time and location. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Can you rephrase this? After the first sentence I have no idea what you're actually trying to say. 

it's consistent in history with other ancient writings.

1. Quirinius wasn't the governor of Syria during the range of years that this story is said to have taken place during.

2. No historical document indicating any census around that time and place has been uncovered that required one to return to their place of birth. 

3. Neither during the reign of Quirinius, or in the years that the story was said to have taken place (approximately 2BCE to 5CE if I recall correctly), was there a record of a census.

I have presented authorship before... maybe it wasn't on this thread, but i feel like you were a part of the thread regardless.  

First there is a lot of evidence within the writing theselves that suggest the information was from eye-witness accounts even if the author themselves was not an eye-witness. 

Second, evidence of known authorship...

let's start with Mark:  John Mark is understood to be the author of Mark despite no direct internal evidence of his authorship.  The most important evidence of his authorship comes from (Papias C. A.D. 140) who quotes an even earlier source of the book of Mark as saying; "Mark was a close associate of Peter from whom he received the tradition of things said and done by the Lord."  Though the gospel of Mark largly consists of the preaching of Peter, Mark is not disputed as the author..

Which brings us to Peter: 

1 Peter is written with the author identifying himself as the Apostle Peter right in the text.  Hard to dispute that.  He would be a direct eye-witness to the accounts as mentioned  To go onto 2nd Peter, that would be Simon Peter who also within the text claims to be an eye-witness of the accounts.  He refers directly to Paul who wrote most of the other NT books.  To further support the idea of Peter, evidence points to the dating of the text to have been written down while Peter was still alive which would elude further reasoning as to the claims that this was actually the apostile Peter. 

The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1). Although the text identifies Peter as its author the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter has led many scholars to conclude that this letter is pseudonymous. Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author of this letter because the author had to have a formal education in rhetoric/philosophy and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language

The author of John was John "the disciple whom Jesus loved"  Not only is his literary style and language taken into consideration but it's also noted that his name is not mentoined in this gospel, which would make sense if he wrote it but hard to explain otherwise." 

Would you like me to go on?  

These were more quickly noted form Zondervan notes. 

Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,^[7][8] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,^{[9][10][11][12][13][14]} and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD.

 

it's not reasoning, it's evidence of writings of that time..  it is known that when referencing to something of a past event that was a story handed down from generations that they would reference current locations and events to describe the story rather than having all the history correct because the important aspect of the story was what happened, not necessarily the name of the location or even the exact dating.  E.g.  if their tribe escaped a traumatic event in history what was important to know was that they escaped by the means said in the story... it really doesn't matter to them after the fact whether it happened in A.D. 320 or B.C. 600 or if it was at that time called Bottlestown or Lionsden.

jabberwocky wrote:

In the moment of temptations? Where does it imply that the verse in Hebrews has anything to do with that? And either I'm missing something or you got your Corinthians verse wrong. 

Either way, I just re-read that entire part of your post. It sounds so utterly absurd I can't believe a human could type such gibberish. 

Do you What HEberws is about?  The first 2 chapters summarizes Jesus' ministry... where or when do you think Hebrews 2:9 applies? 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well I'm here to discuss details. You seem to want to avoid that. How are my conclusions random? What's wrong with them? Could you suggest a better conclusion for this problem I have posed?

yea, bone up on your history. 

I love to discuss details, but when I present facts about those details, I would expect that you'd do a bit of homework and instead of blindly dismissing them as you are, actually have something to back up your counterclaim.  If what I said is false about writings of that time, please find me an example of a writing written by commoners around that time like the Bible that has 100% accurate historical names, times and locations.  Remember, these would be writings talking about their history and/or something that happened several years back that they were told about. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

 

Read the bolded part of your post, and mine. Notice the important distinction. They didn't know it was false (be it a lie or a delusion). Simple. 

Once again, your post is gibberish. You accused me of contradicting myself without concisely showing where. Rephrase that please. 

I specifically stated your claim of anonymity of the writers of the gospels and you're telling me I accused you of contradicting yourself without showing where?  It's where you several times claimed the authorship is not known... pick a spot in your last post. 

For the record, I see your posts as gibberish, but instead of trying to accuse you of one thing or another, I believe there might be a part of you that is trying to comprehend it all and therefore I assume your gibberish is just misunderstanding. wanna take that road with me?

Jabberwocky wrote:

Haha, by literary style? Is there a certain literary style known as "Met Jesus?" Come on! As I said above, give me evidence that the gospel authors are known, and knew Jesus. Until then, your point is invalid. 

Here's a direct example where you said I didn't reference...

Do you know what literary style is?  AS far as eye-witness accounts, there are ususally key words that would reference to such a thing like; "I heard, I said" or directive statements to occurances that otherwise wouldn't be written down like; "Someone in the crowd said," (Luke 12:13) or how about the direct references to John as a witness in John 1:6-13.    style also singles out a persons way of writing... e.g. if you came on here as a different name, over reading several posts, I could likely identify you as Jabberwocky by key words/phrase you tend to use in your posts.   IF they were handwritten documents like the Bible I could also use your handwriting as an identifier when compared to other writings you have where you identified yourself as an author. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Evidence of that too.

What?  Q source?  did you miss the part that no one knows exactly what it is?  What evidence do you want?  The evidence that there was another source is in the gospels be it that 3 of the book use exact statements from Q... it's known that it's Q because Mark is the other copied book and Mark is seen to copy from Q and uses the literary style ( there's that phrase again)  that can only be identified as an outside source from all those books... the style is consistent but cannot be matched with any of the Gospel authors known or not. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Hahaha, because he didn't look up, you assume he didn't see him? Also, shouldn't you be looking them all up if the truth of the bible is important to you?

working on that... I have other things I"m researching at the moment... but yes, I should be... Let's just say be it that Consistently all the "appearances" of God so far (at least 7 or 8 don't suggest that God was actually seen.. leads me to believe the rest would be the same and so it's not a pressing detail I felt needed to be thoroughly researched at this point (for myself).  IF someone brought up a verse like you did and questioned it, I'd do what I just did and investigate to see.

I mean honestly, do you have reasoning from the scriptures considering the other appearances that Abram did see Him or would it be logical based on teh consistency of other appearances that God was likey not seen? 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well if many gods were known and that makes someone more knowledgable in the supernatural than myself, then it would stand to reason that those other gods are real too. Is that what you're suggesting? 

yup.   What do you think those other gods are?

Jabberwocky wrote:

The problem with this statement is that if it's all bullshit, like I think it is, then that means that the people who know the most about the supernatural are those who dismiss it. This supernatural expertise is only valid if it's true, which I don't accept. 

yea, that defies the law of non-contradiction right there. 

If people know most about the supernatural dismiss it, then the supernatural doesn't exist and thus they couldn't know anything about it.. therefore no one would know more about it than others or anything about it for that matter. 

Jabberwocky wrote:

What records? The gospel of Luke. The Gospel of Matthew doesn't discuss the trek, but I believe it places his birth there too. Any other records? 

Births were usually recorded in family records... it was recorded that despite Jesus living elsewhere, He was born in Bethlehem... There's evidence that suggests the family didn't live in Bethlehem and so they must have been traveling for some reason.. it is not logical that a pregnant woman as far along as Mary was would be doing such a traumatic trip unless it was absolutely necessary, therefore they knew it had to be something most likely mandatory... the only conclusion the writer could come up with is that the goverment mandated the trip... why would the government have mandated a pregnant family to take a trip?  at the time the only reasoning the author had was a census which did require by severe penalty all citizens of the territory to travel to the center and "sign in"..

Jabberwocky wrote:

This is an example of how inconsistent it is. Somehow, you have taken these inconsistencies and come to the exact opposite conclusion. How do you call this "consistent in history"?

because despite your 'research' I had already claimed that what actually happened is unknown, what is known is what matters, that Jesus was born where HE was and where He lived in this part.  The details of why don't really matter. 

The problem with all of this is you get so caught up in the small details, you forget to look at the story as a whole and look at the points that matter... e.g. why does it matter that a census was cast or whether they were traveling for other reasons?

I'm sorry. The writing itself can not possibly be evidence. Is it impossible to write certain things unless they really happened? No. It's not. 

Yes, he is disputed as the author. Various sects of Christianity disagree on this. There is disagreement on whether John Mark, Mark the evangelist, and Mark the cousin of Barnabas are the same person. This makes "Mark the evangelist" simply anonymous. If it's certain, why is there no consensus even among Christians?

wikipedia wrote:

The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1). Although the text identifies Peter as its author the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter has led many scholars to conclude that this letter is pseudonymous. Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author of this letter because the author had to have a formal education in rhetoric/philosophy and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language

The authorship of 2 Peter isn't as certain as you are asserting either. You are asserting traditional authorship, and ignoring what historians who study it have said on the matter.

On the one hand, some scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman^[7] are convinced that the language, dating, literary style, and structure of this text makes it implausible to conclude that 1 Peter was written by Peter; according to these scholars, it is more likely that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, written later by one of the disciples of Peter in his honor. On the other hand, some scholars argue that there is not enough evidence to conclude that Peter did not write 1 Peter. For instance, there are similarities between 1 Peter and Peter's speeches in the Biblical book of Acts,^[8] and the earliest attestation of Peter's authorship comes from 2 Peter (AD 80–90) and the letters of Clement (AD 70-140)

wikipedia wrote:

Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,^[7][8] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,^{[9][10][11][12][13][14]} and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD.

Nope. Doesn't seem that John wrote that either. 

According to some, the Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,^[34] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:^[35]

1. An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
2. A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
3. The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85–90 AD.^[36]

Within this view of a complex and multi-layered history, it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process.

it's not reasoning, it's evidence of writings of that time..  it is known that when referencing to something of a past event that was a story handed down from generations that they would reference current locations and events to describe the story rather than having all the history correct because the important aspect of the story was what happened, not necessarily the name of the location or even the exact dating.  E.g.  if their tribe escaped a traumatic event in history what was important to know was that they escaped by the means said in the story... it really doesn't matter to them after the fact whether it happened in A.D. 320 or B.C. 600 or if it was at that time called Bottlestown or Lionsden.