Bible errors - Best ones and why

Will_Know
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Bible errors - Best ones and why

Ciao!
Hello everyone, my very first post in this great forum. I enjoyed many threads and a lot of your professional answers!

I am an atheist, humanist, and I'm writing an essay on these matters.
One of the chapters is about errors in the bible.
What I'm trying to do is to assemble a minimum number of them, very clear, relatively simple, and unattackable. They must be not confutable, but by silly rationalizations!

I have ideas but also a few doubts, and here I'm looking for your competence to sharpen my thesis.
Like it? Hope so!

Let's go. Here are the areas, among the others, I' think I will cover:

- Contraddictions
Creation story - is Gn 1 and 3 (edit: ops, 2) really contraddictory, or is it the same account stated from different points of view (as apologists claim)?
Creation story 2 - Adam & Eve didn't die. On the base of the original hebrew word (which was it?), may we be sure that 'spiritual death' is no more than rationalization?
Decalogue - 3 versions, no probs here I guess.
Jesus genealogy - Apologists claim that luke's is that of Mary. Is it defendable?
Resurrection - accounts are irreconciliable, no probs here.
Punishment onto next generations - Deut. 24:16 vs 1 commandment
Love god but fear god - Can it be reconcilied?

- Absurd science
Genesis again - Plants before light: I heard smone say 'the light was God itself'. Does it make sense?
Universe time-span - Is the day/night story explainable by saying that 'God's days spans millennia/ages'?
Flood - No space for all animals (given they were inside someway), ok. It is considered a 'metaphor' nowdays, but didn't apostles/Paul cite it as true, somewhere?
Ruminant rabbits, bat as birds?

- Spurious passages
Verginity - Matthew beginning. What about Luke's?
The 'let he who is without sin...' incident - Isn't it a later addiction?
Resurrection - Mark end. Any other?
Trinity - Comma Jovanneus and Mt 28:19. Plus can I just state that the whole concept was extraneous to earliest communities?

- Violence and immorality
A lot! - Basically 2 or 3 described ones, to be followed by a long list of verses. I shouldn't have any prob here. Smiling

Here it is. Now share your knowledge with me if you care, I'm waiting for your comments, suggestions and anything else you think I shouldn't miss!

Thank you,
WK


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
1. Re: "out of context" - You love to claim that people are taking your words and Scripture out of context. However, you fail to provide any of the context you claim we're taking things out of.

Oh my God I cannot believe you just said that. EVERY point that has been made that I'm aware of, every thread that I've posted on regarding "out of context" scripture I've backed up with full scripture postings.

jcgadfly wrote:
2. If you knew the Bible you'd be well aware of how many people God has told his people to kill (besides the ones he's killed himself). Or did the history of the Bible go away when Jesus went on hiatus for a few days?

I just knew that someone would respond with that. God would not simply say to kill without reason nor would God say kill an innocent.

Romans 13:4 For he (authority person on Earth) is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.

jcgadfly wrote:
3. Cute reply. Care to answer his question now?

Why? His question cannot be answered in a way that someone who has not received the gift of faith would understand. Even if I did, which I have before, you'd dismiss the answer anyway.

I may have missed it when you posted context for others - I know you didn't for me when I asked for it.

What reasons did God give other than "They don't believe in me"? Are you going to come for me because I disagree with you? You have Biblical precedent.

Also, what did the children that were killed in god's sprees do to tick god off?

On the gift of faith - In other words, I have to buy what you're selling before I'm allowed to understand what I'm actually buying?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
What reasons did God give other than "They don't believe in me"? Are you going to come for me because I disagree with you? You have Biblical precedent.

Just look at Saddam and Gamora. God will remove those who do not listen to his word. Does he need another reason?

jcgadfly wrote:
Also, what did the children that were killed in god's sprees do to tick god off?

God's will is to use what means necessary to make the world understand for generations who he is. How many people remember a  child that got ran over by a man who never saw him - a simple accident. I guarantee you that there are two who never forgot it; the child's parents. God's will may have been that the child would serve his purpose to bring the parents closer to God, closer to one another, and serve the public by introducing speed humps in neighborhoods. Why couldn't he have just put the idea in someone's head? How often did people listen that BinLadin was going to attack before 9/11? What was the concern? How much it would cost and the political fallout of an attack right? What about after 9/11? Attitudes changed forever. People do not listen, even when God is telling them right from wrong, if they are just tapped on the shoulder. It takes a sledgehammer upside the head to get their attention and then they will listen. This is the free will that God grants to us in that we can choose what we will do next. Because God knows this, we are tested, not by God but by Satan, to see if we will indeed heed God's word.

James 1:12-14 Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him. When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.

So what is the purpose when a child dies? God's will be done to the family or those directly affected by this child and it does not end in one day.

jcgadfly wrote:
On the gift of faith - In other words, I have to buy what you're selling before I'm allowed to understand what I'm actually buying?

Nope. You have to be chosen by God, the written "elect", before you can understand. You cannot seek out God; he will seek you out and from then you will seek Jesus. If you are not chosen you are judged upon your actions of your life.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

Given the history of people taking what the bible states or what I post out of context, it has nothing to do with how I answer questions but rather how you respond to my posts. Don't be blaming me...

I've debated a lot of christians, friend. When biblical context is raised by the christian, one of a few things happen. Either: I provide the context, it backs my case up, they go after the translation, I show that my version has as much if not more validity than theirs, they doggedly deny this, OR I tell them that this passage was in full context when I quoted it, and they continue to claim it wasn't OR they back out right after I respond to their initial claim. I've also corrected a lot of atheists who HAVE used biblical passages out of context. I didn't see that in this thread.

razorphreak wrote:

If you knew the bible you'd know that God would not say such a thing to begin with.

Did you read my latest blog post? If you did, you didn't gather much from it. Read it. Also, how many times has god told his followers to massacre people in the bible? Plenty. Sometimes, even children. Sometimes, he told them to kill ALL LIVING THINGS in a particular area.

razorphreak wrote:
If it's easier for you to dismiss me as "delusional" just as many others have on this forum, be my guest. It just goes to prove you don't really have much to contribute to an actual discussion.
See, there you go, taking what I said out of context. You were saying "what if someone saw X". Mattshizzle responded with "it could have been X, Y, Z, A,B,C, etc." You responded with "What if all of these weren't true, and you saw it, you'd have to accept it" and i said "Well, it's hard for these things to not be true, and to determine their validity," and went after each one of those point by point. [EDIT: I didn't mention there that there were many other possibilities, such as weather balloons, satellites, optical illusions caused by any number of natural phenomenon, commercial or private planes, hot air baloons, blimps, etc.] You also said
razorphreak wrote:
Excusing it as a mental illness or anything else is a cop-out and shows exactly how open minded you truly are to new science, or in the case of God, awareness.
I gave a somewhat lengthy reason as to why delusion is a possibility when someone claims they've seen or heard god, and why people who are open minded can use delusion as an explanation without being close minded. I'm going to assume you read it all. You took one part of that out, one part that said delusion is a POSSIBILITY (not a certainty, and not necessarily the best possibility) and said "LOOK! You are dismissing me as insane!" And that part, alone, could suggest that. I did imply that evidence would convince me, or others, that you were right. In fact, if you quoted the next sentence, you'd have seen this, possibly:

BenfromCanada wrote:
Your problem here is that you're taking an illogical position (theism, and in the example, the existence of space aliens in space ships) giving little evidence, as well as a few nonanswers, and thinking people who are not satisfied by this are close minded.


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

Just look at Saddam and Gamora.

Sodom.
razorphreak wrote:
God will remove those who do not listen to his word. Does he need another reason?
Assuming he exists, no. Unless he wants to prove he's loving and merciful.

razorphreak wrote:

God's will is to use what means necessary to make the world understand for generations who he is. How many people remember a child that got ran over by a man who never saw him - a simple accident. I guarantee you that there are two who never forgot it; the child's parents.

Right, but a parent seeing their baby's head smashed won't necessarily say "hey, God is mighty and awesome, let's worship him!" They will either say "the person who killed my baby is a bastard, let's kill him/her" or "god is a bastard, I will never bow to him because he killed my baby." So, it's self defeating, and has possible negative side effects for his chosen people, as any chosen person who kills is subject to revenge killing.
razorphreak wrote:
God's will may have been that the child would serve his purpose to bring the parents closer to God, closer to one another, and serve the public by introducing speed humps in neighborhoods.
Which he could have accomplished by simply getting the kid ALMOST hit, or hit but only bruised. But this is beside the biblical point, where he specifically ordered his people to kill kids AND parents, rather than simply guiding events to kill tthe kids.
razorphreak wrote:
Why couldn't he have just put the idea in someone's head? How often did people listen that BinLadin was going to attack before 9/11?
Maybe bin Laden was God's messenger? Maybe 9/11 was god's will, to punish you for allowing gays to live in your country? Maybe it was god's will because you weren't following him, and were persecuting those who follow his true prophet, Muhammed?
razorphreak wrote:
What was the concern? How much it would cost and the political fallout of an attack right? What about after 9/11? Attitudes changed forever.
You have no way of knowing any of that.
razorphreak wrote:
People do not listen, even when God is telling them right from wrong, if they are just tapped on the shoulder. It takes a sledgehammer upside the head to get their attention and then they will listen. This is the free will that God grants to us in that we can choose what we will do next.
So free will is god smashing me in the head...if I use my free will?
razorphreak wrote:
Because God knows this, we are tested, not by God but by Satan, to see if we will indeed heed God's word.
I'm sure.
razorphreak wrote:

James 1:12-14 Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him. When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed.

I see...so killing the child and the parents is a trial for whom? The killers have no guilt, they did god's will, and all the rest of the tribe that the kid and his/her parent was in are also dead. So, who got a trial here?

raxorphreak wrote:
So what is the purpose when a child dies? God's will be done to the family or those directly affected by this child and it does not end in one day.
But many of the times god commanded deaths of children, the parents were killed too.

razorphreak wrote:

Nope. You have to be chosen by God, the written "elect", before you can understand. You cannot seek out God; he will seek you out and from then you will seek Jesus. If you are not chosen you are judged upon your actions of your life.

So what is your point in being here if god himself will seek out the elect?


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote: Right,

BenfromCanada wrote:
Right, but a parent seeing their baby's head smashed won't necessarily say "hey, God is mighty and awesome, let's worship him!" They will either say "the person who killed my baby is a bastard, let's kill him/her" or "god is a bastard, I will never bow to him because he killed my baby." So, it's self defeating, and has possible negative side effects for his chosen people, as any chosen person who kills is subject to revenge killing.

That's quite an assumption.  Because that's what you might do does not mean that's what I or any other person would do.  I'll never forget a 4 year old girl who had to testify against a man who sexually abused her and forgave him.  The mom did the same.  He has to serve his punishment in accordance to the law but the family holds no ill will and is moving on.  Could I do that?  I don't know because I wasn't there but I pray that God would give me the strength to do the same.  And forgiveness is far more powerful than hate (Romans 12:17-21)

BenfromCanada wrote:
Which he could have accomplished by simply getting the kid ALMOST hit, or hit but only bruised. But this is beside the biblical point, where he specifically ordered his people to kill kids AND parents, rather than simply guiding events to kill tthe kids.

You still miss the point.  It had nothing to do with just community awareness but also self awareness.  Today, who became more aware of what actions you should take upon a shooting...those at VT or those say at New Mexico Tech?  Now that it's happened, who will more aware of how precious life is?  Who's parents will be more aware of their children?

BenfromCanada wrote:
razorphreak wrote:
What was the concern? How much it would cost and the political fallout of an attack right? What about after 9/11? Attitudes changed forever.
You have no way of knowing any of that.

If you are in fact in Canada, how can you presume to know the minds of Americans...and I'm not talking about what you see on TV.

BenfromCanada wrote:
I see...so killing the child and the parents is a trial for whom? The killers have no guilt, they did god's will, and all the rest of the tribe that the kid and his/her parent was in are also dead. So, who got a trial here?

And you know that how?

BenfromCanada wrote:
So what is your point in being here if god himself will seek out the elect?

To do God's will.  I thought I said this...several times now. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: That's

razorphreak wrote:

That's quite an assumption. Because that's what you might do does not mean that's what I or any other person would do. I'll never forget a 4 year old girl who had to testify against a man who sexually abused her and forgave him. The mom did the same. He has to serve his punishment in accordance to the law but the family holds no ill will and is moving on. Could I do that? I don't know because I wasn't there but I pray that God would give me the strength to do the same. And forgiveness is far more powerful than hate (Romans 12:17-21)

I'm not saying "someone died, it might be god's will". I'm saying that a non-believer's child is killed by a christian who claimed to be doing god's will. I'm assuming also that this non-believer thinks this god might exist (thus putting it in the context of the bible verses in question, where theists and their kids were killed by people worshipping another god).

razorphreak wrote:
You still miss the point. It had nothing to do with just community awareness but also self awareness. Today, who became more aware of what actions you should take upon a shooting...those at VT or those say at New Mexico Tech? Now that it's happened, who will more aware of how precious life is? Who's parents will be more aware of their children?
If they don't know how precious life is before the event, there's a large chance that they'll forget it after the event.

razorphreak wrote:

If you are in fact in Canada, how can you presume to know the minds of Americans...and I'm not talking about what you see on TV.

God fucking damn it. I hear this SO MANY FUCKING TIMES from Americans. This pisses me off. OK, here's why I can presume to know.

1: Yes, your TV, but also your literature, internet, movies, etc. There are many things you guys export to every other country that give insight ino your collective consciousness.

2: I live on the border, have been into many of your states, and even lived in your country.

3: I am in constant communication with people in the U.S.A.

4: I can read opinion polls to find out what you guys think.

5: My father, my ex-fiance, and several of my best friends are from the U.S.A.

That enough? Should I add more? 

razorphreak wrote:

And you know that how?

I'm talking about the bible passages here. Where god ordered genocide, specifically.

razorphreak wrote:

To do God's will. I thought I said this...several times now.

I haven't read all of your stuff. So god's will is to
 have you preach to the unsaved...though he himself will come to those who he decided to save? Am I correct?


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:If you

razorphreak wrote:

If you are in fact in Canada, how can you presume to know the minds of Americans...and I'm not talking about what you see on TV.

This is quite possibly one of the dumbest things an American can say. Amazing how often they say it. You think we're blind, deaf, and stupid or something?

Newsflash!

CANADA IS SO CLOSE TO THE US WE CAN SPIT ACROSS THE BORDER. CANADA IS NOT IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

And in other news, the earth is roughly spherical....

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote: I'm

BenfromCanada wrote:
I'm not saying "someone died, it might be god's will". I'm saying that a non-believer's child is killed by a christian who claimed to be doing god's will. I'm assuming also that this non-believer thinks this god might exist (thus putting it in the context of the bible verses in question, where theists and their kids were killed by people worshipping another god).

I think I understand now.  If it's God's will he holds the final judgement over that person.  The believer who carried out the action will face judgement according to man's laws but only God knows the true faith of the man. 

 

BenfromCanada wrote:
If they don't know how precious life is before the event, there's a large chance that they'll forget it after the event.

If you've lost a parent to something like cancer or diabetes or to a drunk driver, how fast do you think you'd forget why your parent died?

BenfromCanada wrote:
OK, here's why I can presume to know.

1: Yes, your TV, but also your literature, internet, movies, etc. There are many things you guys export to every other country that give insight ino your collective consciousness.

2: I live on the border, have been into many of your states, and even lived in your country.

3: I am in constant communication with people in the U.S.A.

4: I can read opinion polls to find out what you guys think.

5: My father, my ex-fiance, and several of my best friends are from the U.S.A.

That enough? Should I add more?

So tell me, you understand then that people when boarding airplanes don't exactly look at someone of middle eastern disent the same?  The security personel, you do know that there are hundreds of incidents that never get reported and many people are unaware of where TSA screens some people differently than before 9/11?  Attitudes have changed, even if in the slightest.

BenfromCanada wrote:
So god's will is to have you preach to the unsaved...though he himself will come to those who he decided to save? Am I correct?

Actually I came here because I feel the need to correct invalid assumptions about Christians and what the bible states.  I'm not preaching, witnessing, or activley trying to convert.  I'm someone in discussion on an online forum.  But you are right on the second part... 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Unbeliever
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-03-27
User is offlineOffline
It seems to me there's a

It seems to me there's a contradiction between John 3:18 and John 12:47.

 In the first, it is said that "he that believeth not is condemned already", but in the latter verse, it says that if any man hears Jesus's words, and believes not, Jesus judges him not.

The need for critical thinking is becoming critical, I'm thinking.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Unbeliever wrote: It seems

Unbeliever wrote:
It seems to me there's a contradiction between John 3:18 and John 12:47.

In the first, it is said that "he that believeth not is condemned already", but in the latter verse, it says that if any man hears Jesus's words, and believes not, Jesus judges him not.

I think you are missing one small detail...Jesus at both points is speaking as a man not as God.  In both sections of verses, in John 3 from verse 16-21 Jesus is speaking his purpose.  Jesus is not condemning as Jesus is a man at this point but is trying to emphasize it is God, the final judge and jury, who will condemn.  Jesus, as a man, will not do this.  In John 12, verses 47-50 say the same thing in stressing that God the Father will be the judge.  Here Jesus is explaining his words are not that of a man but that of God.  If you do not believe in the words that Jesus spoke, and this words are of action not just for nodding your head, then it is God, not Jesus the man, who will judge.  That make sense?

 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: I think

razorphreak wrote:

I think I understand now. If it's God's will he holds the final judgement over that person. The believer who carried out the action will face judgement according to man's laws but only God knows the true faith of the man.

Fine, butthis is a pretty bad situation all in all, for everyone involved. The christian community gets hated and possibly attacked for one (or a few) person's actions. Christians who think the action was a good one and those who denounce it will fight amongst themselves, possibly physically.And the friends and family of the person who was killed will certainly not convert to that religion if the god the christians worship is OK with that shit. 

razorphreak wrote:

If you've lost a parent to something like cancer or diabetes or to a drunk driver, how fast do you think you'd forget why your parent died?

And if it was proven that it was god, what reason would I have to love him? 

razorphreak wrote:

So tell me, you understand then that people when boarding airplanes don't exactly look at someone of middle eastern disent the same? The security personel, you do know that there are hundreds of incidents that never get reported and many people are unaware of where TSA screens some people differently than before 9/11? Attitudes have changed, even if in the slightest.

I can't not insult you here, dumbass. 9/11 was almost 6 years ago. Did it not occur to you that someone LIVING ON THE BORDER would cross it in the last 6 years? I am between an hour and an hour and a half's drive from the U.S.A. border (with normal traffic, weather conditions, and doing the speed limit). We still don't need a passport to enter your country. Point #2, you ethnocentric moron, is that EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WESTERN WORLD tightened its airline security after 9/11, and many non-Western countries did as well. You have no way of knowing the following three facts, but I am part native american (just enough that I am often mistaken for Arabic) traveled on an airplane during October 2001, and have since begun working as airport security. I was stopped at every single airport save the one in my town on my October '01 trip whether or not I set off the metal detector, none of the white people I travelled with were stopped once. I'm aware of all of this. Quit hiding behind this ridiculous veil.

razorphreak wrote:

Actually I came here because I feel the need to correct invalid assumptions about Christians and what the bible states. I'm not preaching, witnessing, or activley trying to convert. I'm someone in discussion on an online forum. But you are right on the second part...

As a former christian, I can tell you that many christians would disagree with you. I can also tell you that many of the "invalid assumptions" are quite valid, depending on whom you ask in the body of believers.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote: The

BenfromCanada wrote:
The christian community gets hated and possibly attacked for one (or a few) person's actions. Christians who think the action was a good one and those who denounce it will fight amongst themselves, possibly physically.And the friends and family of the person who was killed will certainly not convert to that religion if the god the christians worship is OK with that shit.

If the person is doing God's will, he/she may be hated but what does that matter?  I'm not liked here by some but I don't lose sleep over it. 

BenfromCanada wrote:
And if it was proven that it was god, what reason would I have to love him?

I don't understand.

BenfromCanada wrote:
I can't not insult you here, dumbass...

I couldn't even read your post; you need to calm down.

BenfromCanada wrote:
I can tell you that many christians would disagree with you. I can also tell you that many of the "invalid assumptions" are quite valid, depending on whom you ask in the body of believers.

Disagree about what?  From christian to christian, if I can prove assumptions are invalid in accordance to what the bible states, we'll debate it out and understand exactly what the assumption is. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: I think

razorphreak wrote:

I think you are missing one small detail...Jesus at both points is speaking as a man not as God. In both sections of verses, in John 3 from verse 16-21 Jesus is speaking his purpose. Jesus is not condemning as Jesus is a man at this point but is trying to emphasize it is God, the final judge and jury, who will condemn. Jesus, as a man, will not do this. In John 12, verses 47-50 say the same thing in stressing that God the Father will be the judge. Here Jesus is explaining his words are not that of a man but that of God. If you do not believe in the words that Jesus spoke, and this words are of action not just for nodding your head, then it is God, not Jesus the man, who will judge. That make sense?

 

Nice ad hoc rationalization....so exactly which part of the quoted scripture says, "This is Jesus the man talking not jesus the god"....which is especially troubling when you think about the fact that jesus "is" god  (at least that was my understanding when I was a xtian, maybe things have changed since then).  Also, if this is such an inspired text why did god have john wait 9 chapters before he addressed the fundamental flaw in the argument...oh wait, no you just cherry picked an out of context verse to support your argument.  Nice..

No Gods, Know Peace.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote:

NinjaTux wrote:
Nice ad hoc rationalization....so exactly which part of the quoted scripture says, "This is Jesus the man talking not jesus the god"....which is especially troubling when you think about the fact that jesus "is" god (at least that was my understanding when I was a xtian, maybe things have changed since then).

OK in the gospels, when Jesus is speaking to the crowds or the groups who are listening, did they regard him as a man or as God? You are combining what has been determined via study after 2000 years that was not revealed to these people in 5 minutes. Jesus is God on Earth but to those who were listening to him, he was a man, hence being the example to them regarding judgement and condemnation, which is what the verses are related to. Does this make sense to you?

NinjaTux wrote:
Also, if this is such an inspired text why did god have john wait 9 chapters before he addressed the fundamental flaw in the argument...oh wait, no you just cherry picked an out of context verse to support your argument. Nice..

Huh? Umm hello I was asked about those verses, or did you not read that in the thread? Sounds like you cherry picked what to bash today...

By the way ninja, that avitar is bad ass....haha. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, razor. This "he was

Sorry, razor.

This "he was speaking as a man in this instance and speaking as God in that one" based solely on your interpretation (which must be the right one since it's yours, eh?) is not that much different from saying

"If I don't like what Jesus was saying, he was speaking as a man. If I do, he was speaking as the Incarnate God."

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:   OK

razorphreak wrote:

 

OK in the gospels, when Jesus is speaking to the crowds or the groups who are listening, did they regard him as a man or as God? You are combining what has been determined via study after 2000 years that was not revealed to these people in 5 minutes. Jesus is God on Earth but to those who were listening to him, he was a man, hence being the example to them regarding judgement and condemnation, which is what the verses are related to. Does this make sense to you?

since when did what everyone around jesus thought mattered, b/c my majority rule he would be a heretic, not a messiah.  I don't accept the premise that everyone elses opinion matter.  and just for clarity which views am I combining?   

Quote:

Huh? Umm hello I was asked about those verses, or did you not read that in the thread? Sounds like you cherry picked what to bash today...

no I didn't read the rest of the thread.  Yes I do cherry pick issue to bash.  I'll be honest with you. 

Quote:
By the way ninja, that avitar is bad ass....haha.

Someone else made it (I don't know who...), but thanks just the same 

No Gods, Know Peace.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Sorry, razor.

This "he was speaking as a man in this instance and speaking as God in that one" based solely on your interpretation (which must be the right one since it's yours, eh?) is not that much different from saying

"If I don't like what Jesus was saying, he was speaking as a man. If I do, he was speaking as the Incarnate God."

No it's not and if you stopped to think about it you'd realize what I'm trying to explain here. I'm not talking about who Jesus was in these verses, I'm explaining to you how the people who lived at the time who walked with him would have viewed him and how they would have accepted him during his ministries (and hence how we as humans should look at his example on how to live as well). People would come to believe him as the Christ, the Son of God, and God as a man on Earth but the point is during this time Jesus became the example for all men on how to live and the two verses listed were examples from Jesus as a man to others on how to live. You seem to be combining revelations after the time of Jesus to what was understood about him at the time.

As an example of what you are doing to justify your responses, say we use the military. How can you compare the solider of the civil war to that of today's solider? Would today's solider understand the idea that people would litterly have picnics near the battlefield to watch and at dark, both sides would stop fighting and have parties? Would the civil war solider understand air fighters much less smart bombs?

Much like how our understand of who Jesus was came to be, same can be said on how we changed warfare over the centuries. Asking "well why didn't they use the airplanes to attack" and assume this to be some kind of battle warfare contradiction (since we know today that battles are faught with an airplane) because you are using today's understanding of war is a misinterpretation of the time of the events. Our understanding of Jesus today cannot be compared as to how people of the time would have understood him and accepted him.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote: since when

NinjaTux wrote:
since when did what everyone around jesus thought mattered, b/c my majority rule he would be a heretic, not a messiah. I don't accept the premise that everyone elses opinion matter. and just for clarity which views am I combining?

But understanding the time period and how Jesus would have approached them would help you understand the meanings of his parables and speeches.  It's not their opinions that I'm speaking of but rather their impressions of his words.  Because he wanted them to understand his speech, he spoke in such a way they would understand (like the parable of the wine skins in Matthew 9 - how many use that technique today?...very very few I'd think). Hence Jesus' speech and words would have to leave an impression for them to understand and saying "well he's God so why would he do this" does not make it a contradiction.  It means that it needs to be read as if you were a person during that time period and you are listening to him as you would any other orator.  It is though a full understanding and a full reading of Jesus' words and actions that you come to the realization on who Jesus was.  That did not come in two verses so using this defense is not logical.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
So when Jesus was talking

So when Jesus was talking to the disciples by themselves, was he speaking as God or as man?

If you want to take that contextual view, razor, Jesus was never more than a man until the guys who wanted to build a religion around him made him God.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: So when

jcgadfly wrote:

So when Jesus was talking to the disciples by themselves, was he speaking as God or as man?

If you want to take that contextual view, razor, Jesus was never more than a man until the guys who wanted to build a religion around him made him God.

Agreed.  I don't see how you can draw the line anywhere, if that's what you're in fact trying to say.  He was always speaking to other people, therefore he would have always been a man... 

No Gods, Know Peace.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote:

NinjaTux wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

So when Jesus was talking to the disciples by themselves, was he speaking as God or as man?

If you want to take that contextual view, razor, Jesus was never more than a man until the guys who wanted to build a religion around him made him God.

Agreed. I don't see how you can draw the line anywhere, if that's what you're in fact trying to say. He was always speaking to other people, therefore he would have always been a man...

And if you read the full gospels you'll see how he speaks to the crowds and how the level at which he speaks progressively gets more and more, I guess the word would be "spiritual", and it is then towards the end in which Jesus does not speak quite in the same manor. I'm not drawing a line since we are 2000 years later and we can evaluate the fullness of his message. What I'm saying is before you cry out contradiction, there is a need for understanding both the context of the speech and the period of time in which it would have occurred. Add to this mentalities of the people and you might begin to see under which context Jesus spoke. No one built anything around him; those who believed were followers of his example. It is us who built up religions and dogma not of his example but of our own desires. This is why I can make the statement of "no contradictions" because you need to stop taking the bible as if it was written yesterday.

Another example (and I've given this before)...if you are describing a football game and told someone about it, would you tell them "our team missed a 4th down attempt and lost the game" but omit the detail they were down 30 points with 10 seconds left? This changes the entire context of your description and under what premise the game was being watched and listened to and helps to let people know what your mindset was like at the time of watching the game. The same can be said on how you interpret Jesus' words, not like how we would today with dogma clouding the view, but rather like someone 2000 years ago hearing the words for the first time, ever.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
I've had theist try to

I've had theist try to argue that that fact that god is contradictory is part of his nature (ie; he can be both just and merciful at the same time), but the fact that you deny the contradiction doesn't mean there isn't one.

Luke 14:26 wrote:

14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (from the SAB, I thought it was 14:29, but it says 14:26)

I've yet to hear a valid argument as to how this is in favor of the "christian moral viewpoint".  Ergun Caner was interviewed and he tried to use a "you have to love god so much that by comparison you feel this way" argument, but even reading the rest of the chapter there is no possible explanation for why jesus is telling all of his disciples to hate everyone.  I have the SAB pulled up on a tab I can copy the rest of the text in if you want to try the "5 lines before and 5 lines after" approach.

No Gods, Know Peace.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:
NinjaTux wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

So when Jesus was talking to the disciples by themselves, was he speaking as God or as man?

If you want to take that contextual view, razor, Jesus was never more than a man until the guys who wanted to build a religion around him made him God.

Agreed. I don't see how you can draw the line anywhere, if that's what you're in fact trying to say. He was always speaking to other people, therefore he would have always been a man...

And if you read the full gospels you'll see how he speaks to the crowds and how the level at which he speaks progressively gets more and more, I guess the word would be "spiritual", and it is then towards the end in which Jesus does not speak quite in the same manor. I'm not drawing a line since we are 2000 years later and we can evaluate the fullness of his message. What I'm saying is before you cry out contradiction, there is a need for understanding both the context of the speech and the period of time in which it would have occurred. Add to this mentalities of the people and you might begin to see under which context Jesus spoke. No one built anything around him; those who believed were followers of his example. It is us who built up religions and dogma not of his example but of our own desires. This is why I can make the statement of "no contradictions" because you need to stop taking the bible as if it was written yesterday.

Another example (and I've given this before)...if you are describing a football game and told someone about it, would you tell them "our team missed a 4th down attempt and lost the game" but omit the detail they were down 30 points with 10 seconds left? This changes the entire context of your description and under what premise the game was being watched and listened to and helps to let people know what your mindset was like at the time of watching the game. The same can be said on how you interpret Jesus' words, not like how we would today with dogma clouding the view, but rather like someone 2000 years ago hearing the words for the first time, ever.

If you want to go that way, razor, he had to dumb down what he was telling the disciples (look at the times he had to explain his parables to them). Do you really want to say that being close to Jesus makes you stupid? 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: If you want

jcgadfly wrote:
If you want to go that way, razor, he had to dumb down what he was telling the disciples (look at the times he had to explain his parables to them). Do you really want to say that being close to Jesus makes you stupid?

If it's so dumbed down, why don't more understand it?  Tell me though what you mean. 

I've been called worse because I believe in Jesus so words mean little when I know I'm in good company. 

NinjaTux wrote:
I've had theist try to argue that that fact that god is contradictory is part of his nature (ie; he can be both just and merciful at the same time), but the fact that you deny the contradiction doesn't mean there isn't one.

God is not contradictory.  He is the same God yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

I'm wondering what you are implying with Luke 14:26.  The verse you post is in reference to having anything between you and God.  It has nothing to do with any moral viewpoint as Jesus' words are about when hatred is valid - hate when something or someone is between you and God as this person or thing cannot be good.  Family can try to take you away from God in that, for example, a wife will try to make you feel guilty for not spending time with her over those in need.  A child can commit a crime and you do nothing because the child looks at you for support.  Your life...if you love your material possessions before God.  This is what Luke 14:26 means...let nothing come between you and God.

 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Yeah cause that's not what

Yeah cause that's not what it SAID.  You made that up as a rationalization for why god is not contradictory.  You say that's an explaination, then explain it better b/c that didn't go over so well.  Your remark is not even close to the actual text.

No Gods, Know Peace.


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: God is

razorphreak wrote:

God is not contradictory. He is the same God yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

 I'm saying that he can possess contradictory qualities (justice and mercy, which cannot both be satisfied at the same time)

Quote:
I'm wondering what you are implying with Luke 14:26. The verse you post is in reference to having anything between you and God. It has nothing to do with any moral viewpoint as Jesus' words are about when hatred is valid - hate when something or someone is between you and God as this person or thing cannot be good. Family can try to take you away from God in that, for example, a wife will try to make you feel guilty for not spending time with her over those in need. A child can commit a crime and you do nothing because the child looks at you for support. Your life...if you love your material possessions before God. This is what Luke 14:26 means...let nothing come between you and God.

 

THE BIBLE (all caps just for you) wrote:

14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

nope still don't see it 

No Gods, Know Peace.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote: nope still

NinjaTux wrote:
nope still don't see it

Sorry if you don't but that's what it means. 


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Sorry if you don't

Quote:
Sorry if you don't but that's what it means.

No, I don't think it does and I'm not conceding any point you haven't proven.  I said that I don't see where your getting that.  Other than the fact that you made the assertion initially, do you actually have a reason for thinking it?  If yes, please explain it.  If no, I will have to call that a lie.

I'm saying that I'm simply wanting to know how you arrived at this conclusion.  I arrived at my conclusion by reading the text.  Since your assertion does not follow the text I can only assume that you have some argument that you aren't giving for WHY you said it in the first place. 

No Gods, Know Peace.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote: I'm saying

NinjaTux wrote:
I'm saying that I'm simply wanting to know how you arrived at this conclusion. I arrived at my conclusion by reading the text. Since your assertion does not follow the text I can only assume that you have some argument that you aren't giving for WHY you said it in the first place.

Now why didn't you say this to begin with instead of being combative?

I'm going to stick with only Luke since this is where it began...

Jesus spoke of followers throughout his life. He makes mention to several people about following in his footsteps. He turned no one away who's faith was true and, as he would explain, who God revealed to the truth. In Luke 9:57-62..."No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.", meaning the person who cares more for what happenings on this Earth and not the calling of God will not receive the gift of faith and salvation.

Luke 10:27 " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

The first commandment, Love God first, comes before family, friends, and self. Because of this, he explains what will happen because of his coming...

Luke 12:51-53 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

The division that Jesus brings is because, as he explains, many are called but few are chosen because they did not chose him when called. In chapter 14, the parable of the great banquet (15-24), when the master calls many but no one would go, this is likened to many being called to Jesus though his servants, but few would come so he called all who would listen and would shut out anyone who did not come when called.

People will be against each other because of Jesus as not all will come to the understanding or the acceptance of him. For many it's not about disagreements between family members but worldly possessions, such as the rich ruler who could not leave his money to follow Jesus (Luke 18:18-30).

I know I said I'd stick with Luke but John 9 and the story of the man born blind is a great example of how people will hate you for Jesus' name. The man who was blind would come to be hated by the Pharisees and so the blind man would hate them in return as they would try to come between him and Jesus and the blind man rejected them for Jesus.

Through the gospels, Jesus makes it known that you should not have anyone or anything between you and God for if you do you would not be worthy of God's gift. If you find anything between you and salvation, hate and remove it from your life for Jesus stated..

Luke 6:22 Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

NinjaTux wrote:
I'm saying that I'm simply wanting to know how you arrived at this conclusion. I arrived at my conclusion by reading the text. Since your assertion does not follow the text I can only assume that you have some argument that you aren't giving for WHY you said it in the first place.

Now why didn't you say this to begin with instead of being combative?

NinjaTux wrote:
Yeah cause that's not what it SAID.  You made that up as a rationalization for why god is not contradictory.  You say that's an explaination, then explain it better b/c that didn't go over so well.  Your remark is not even close to the actual text.

Quote:
I'm going to stick with only Luke since this is where it began...

Jesus spoke of followers throughout his life. He makes mention to several people about following in his footsteps. He turned no one away who's faith was true and, as he would explain, who God revealed to the truth. In Luke 9:57-62..."No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.", meaning the person who cares more for what happenings on this Earth and not the calling of God will not receive the gift of faith and salvation.

Luke 10:27 " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

Hey we've officially come full-circle
Quote:

The first commandment, Love God first, comes before family, friends, and self. Because of this, he explains what will happen because of his coming...

Luke 12:51-53 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

I see where that can atleast be derived from the text itself

Quote:
 

The division that Jesus brings is because, as he explains, many are called but few are chosen because they did not chose him when called. In chapter 14, the parable of the great banquet (15-24), when the master calls many but no one would go, this is likened to many being called to Jesus though his servants, but few would come so he called all who would listen and would shut out anyone who did not come when called.

People will be against each other because of Jesus as not all will come to the understanding or the acceptance of him. For many it's not about disagreements between family members but worldly possessions, such as the rich ruler who could not leave his money to follow Jesus (Luke 18:18-30).

Ok, the derivation is followable (if that's a word in this context), but that requires alot of faith in interpretation and allegory.  Also, that would seem to be a craw in the side of biblical literalists, due in no small part to the fact that much of the "reasoning" is inferred from inferences of inferences.  I don't buy it personally, but  I wasn't looking for something to convince me, I was just wondering how you arrived at the conclusion you stated.

Quote:
 

[edited due to the fact that I already read 4 chapters of the bible and that was enough for tonight].

 the one problem that I still have with this is ...He's telling you to hate your family... I can't abide that for any reason.  I can see my family.  I know they love me.  And it just smacks of hypocrisy, god is supposed to forgive, but we aren't.  What happened to preaching to those that need it most...but the path you took to arrive at your conclusion is clear.  Even though I have to respectfully disagree.

No Gods, Know Peace.


Unbeliever
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-03-27
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: And if

razorphreak wrote:

And if you read the full gospels you'll see how he speaks to the crowds and how the level at which he speaks progressively gets more and more, I guess the word would be "spiritual", and it is then towards the end in which Jesus does not speak quite in the same manor. 

 

Is this kinda like how the Pope somtimes speaks "ex cathedra"? How are we supposed to tell the difference, when it's Jesus who's speaking? It seems to me that it's a matter of whim (ad hoc), whenever something difficult needs to be explained, Jesus is speaking as either God or as man, depending on the scriptural problem involved. This is not persuasive, you'll have to do better than that if you want to convince me that I'm in error in relation to contradictions.

The need for critical thinking is becoming critical, I'm thinking.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
the one problem that I

the one problem that I still have with this is ...He's telling you to hate your family... I can't abide that for any reason.  I can see my family.  I know they love me.  And it just smacks of hypocrisy, god is supposed to forgive, but we aren't.  What happened to preaching to those that need it most...but the path you took to arrive at your conclusion is clear.  Even though I have to respectfully disagree.

Reminds me of how cults divide their marks from friends and family.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote: Ok, the

NinjaTux wrote:
Ok, the derivation is followable (if that's a word in this context), but that requires alot of faith in interpretation and allegory. Also, that would seem to be a craw in the side of biblical literalists, due in no small part to the fact that much of the "reasoning" is inferred from inferences of inferences. I don't buy it personally, but I wasn't looking for something to convince me, I was just wondering how you arrived at the conclusion you stated.

And now you know.  My point has been that the bible message, especially that of Jesus, is clear because they are all interconnected to each other.  Each point supports the last.  I didn't mean to go all bible study on you but you did ask.

NinjaTux wrote:
the one problem that I still have with this is ...He's telling you to hate your family... I can't abide that for any reason. I can see my family. I know they love me. And it just smacks of hypocrisy, god is supposed to forgive, but we aren't. What happened to preaching to those that need it most...but the path you took to arrive at your conclusion is clear. Even though I have to respectfully disagree.

As to my point, I'm actually kinda wondering why you disagree. The interpretation I presented to you is biblically based and is shared from other biblical interpreters.

You know I'm curious if you are an "ex-Christian" as I've heard it used.  I know magilum is.

I ask because if your family is Christian and you've approached them saying you don't believe in God, I wonder if you've experienced the hate that can come from people over something like that.

My point there is while it's not easy to accept, there will be people who will hate you and reject you for your beliefs.  It is not Jesus' teaching to litterly hate someone but do not have the person as part of your life in the faith of Jesus if they are pushing you away from God.  If I were to date someone who was an atheist, I would not hate her for her non-belief, but if she were to attack my faith I would not simply change my mind like Katie Holmes did.  If the person would not accept me for me with my faith, then I do not have to accept that person either.  You do not keep someone in your life that is trying to destroy you and that is what it's all about.

Unbeliever wrote:
Is this kinda like how the Pope somtimes speaks "ex cathedra"? How are we supposed to tell the difference, when it's Jesus who's speaking? It seems to me that it's a matter of whim (ad hoc), whenever something difficult needs to be explained, Jesus is speaking as either God or as man, depending on the scriptural problem involved. This is not persuasive, you'll have to do better than that if you want to convince me that I'm in error in relation to contradictions.
 

 As a generic statement, I could tell you that he spoke more theological after his entry to Jerusalem.  Case by case if you want to ask...

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: And now

razorphreak wrote:

And now you know. My point has been that the bible message, especially that of Jesus, is clear because they are all interconnected to each other. Each point supports the last. I didn't mean to go all bible study on you but you did ask.

I wanted to see what your reasoning was, after you posted I sat down and read luke chapters 10-15. In order to argue you have to know both sides, I wanted to know your side.

Quote:
As to my point, I'm actually kinda wondering why you disagree. The interpretation I presented to you is biblically based and is shared from other biblical interpreters.

well, big reason: I don't believe in the bible for one thing. I just wanted some sort of rationale for that particular passage. I'll have to say that there are those that disagree with you line of reasoning.

Quote:
You know I'm curious if you are an "ex-Christian" as I've heard it used. I know magilum is.
Yes, United Methodist till I was 17.

Quote:
I ask because if your family is Christian and you've approached them saying you don't believe in God, I wonder if you've experienced the hate that can come from people over something like that.

No actually, my father doesn't understand (but he still loves me and always will) and I refuse to get into a religious debate with him out of respect (that and his beliefs are more benign that most, especially the really fundamentalist varieties).  Honestly, my dad is the type of father (I hope to be half the father he was to me) that would probably give up his faith if it meant a choice between me or it.  I hope that day never comes, I wouldn't want him to decide between two things that were very important to him.

Quote:
My point there is while it's not easy to accept, there will be people who will hate you and reject you for your beliefs.

Agreed...(Hello pot, I'm kettle....or if you prefer, Hello, choir I have a little sermon for you...)

Quote:
It is not Jesus' teaching to litterly hate someone but do not have the person as part of your life in the faith of Jesus if they are pushing you away from God. If I were to date someone who was an atheist, I would not hate her for her non-belief, but if she were to attack my faith I would not simply change my mind like Katie Holmes did. If the person would not accept me for me with my faith, then I do not have to accept that person either. You do not keep someone in your life that is trying to destroy you and that is what it's all about.

Umm...just so you know my gf is a theist, and she posts on this site (Wishkah311)....so, Yeah....your point would be exactly...

No Gods, Know Peace.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote:

NinjaTux wrote:
well, big reason: I don't believe in the bible for one thing. I just wanted some sort of rationale for that particular passage. I'll have to say that there are those that disagree with you line of reasoning.

Granted but that point is irrevelant to this conversation no?  I've seen this many a time but when discussing what the bible states, belief is not what is important but rather point of view and proper interpretation....at least that's what I'd hope for.

NinjaTux wrote:
No actually, my father doesn't understand (but he still loves me and always will) and I refuse to get into a religious debate with him out of respect (that and his beliefs are more benign that most, especially the really fundamentalist varieties). Honestly, my dad is the type of father (I hope to be half the father he was to me) that would probably give up his faith if it meant a choice between me or it. I hope that day never comes, I wouldn't want him to decide between two things that were very important to him.

I suppose you are one of the lucky ones. Hell I've had a hard enough time with my family when I left the fundamentalist of the catholic church to follow something more bible based...

NinjaTux wrote:
Umm...just so you know my gf is a theist, and she posts on this site (Wishkah311)....so, Yeah....your point would be exactly...

Then we understand each other.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
I don't know where you're

I don't know where you're from, but I inhabit the bible belt.  Eveytime I hear someone talk about a bible based church I cringe.  Alot of the newer "bible based" protestant sects were created either in or around Tennessee, and since their creation hundreds of splinters have formed.  I've attended probably 15 different protestant churches and it's funny how they're all "bible based" and they all think the rest of them are going to hell.  The other major problem is that they also don't educate their parishioners.  I've had several people tell me that their sect was in no way based on catholicism (they use the bible, most of them the KJV, and sorry but that was created by catholics).  Theism may annoy me but I abhor ignorance.  If you believe something, you better damn well at least understand it.

 

I'm done with my little rant now, that was not directed at you.  just a general problem I see...that and you at least seem to have thought about your beliefs outside of a church. 

No Gods, Know Peace.


Unbeliever
Posts: 3
Joined: 2007-03-27
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote: I don't

NinjaTux wrote:

I don't know where you're from, but I inhabit the bible belt.  Eveytime I hear someone talk about a bible based church I cringe.  Alot of the newer "bible based" protestant sects were created either in or around Tennessee, and since their creation hundreds of splinters have formed.  I've attended probably 15 different protestant churches and it's funny how they're all "bible based" and they all think the rest of them are going to hell.

Yeah, the World Christian Encyclopedia says there are 33,830 Christian denominations, all claiming biblical authority. And yet, the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. Go figure. Wink 

Quote:
The other major problem is that they also don't educate their parishioners.  I've had several people tell me that their sect was in no way based on catholicism (they use the bible, most of them the KJV, and sorry but that was created by catholics).

Yeah, the Bible originated with the Roman Catholic Church, so if they were Satan's spawn, why would they preserve God's Word intact through the centuries? Or even if they're merely "not Christians", as some would claim, then how can they have been trusted to transmit God's Word faithfully to us today? Or how can we even trust that the Bible is God's Word, and not some fairy tale that's been concocted by greedy powermongers, for the sake of keeping the poor from murdering the rich?

And yet, Protestants all over the world never question where thier holy book came from, or whatever's in it. They just trust to the religious authority of their choice (or their parents' choice) to give it to them in easy to swallow bites, like pablum.

 

Quote:
Theism may annoy me but I abhor ignorance.  If you believe something, you better damn well at least understand it.

I often wonder how people can claim to believe the Bible, when they don't even know what's in it, because they haven't read it. Religious illiteracy is rampant, most people really know very little about their religion, its history or its tenets.

The need for critical thinking is becoming critical, I'm thinking.


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Unbeliever wrote: Yeah,

Unbeliever wrote:

Yeah, the World Christian Encyclopedia says there are 33,830 Christian denominations, all claiming biblical authority. And yet, the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. Go figure. Wink

I grew up in a town of less than 10K people and there were over 15 different churches...I have been well versed in the diferences and peculiarities of the protestant faith, sometimes I wish I hadn't...Southern Joke: What's the difference between and Methodist and a Baptist?......Methodists buy their liquor in their home town. 

No Gods, Know Peace.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Unbeliever wrote: Yeah, the

Unbeliever wrote:
Yeah, the World Christian Encyclopedia says there are 33,830 Christian denominations, all claiming biblical authority. And yet, the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. Go figure. Wink

None of them claim biblical authority only difference in observance.  Every one of them regards Jesus as the savior and every one recognizes his death and resurrection.

Unbeliever wrote:
Or how can we even trust that the Bible is God's Word, and not some fairy tale that's been concocted by greedy powermongers, for the sake of keeping the poor from murdering the rich?

Because, as believers, we follow AND BELIEVE what is written..

2 Peter 1:20-21 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire