1. JP Holding and traditional ascription is not "extensive research". There's no evidence for Matthew's authorship of the gospel, dispute for evidence that John the Apostle wrote his gospel, no one's sure which Mark wrote the gospel of Mark,

and Luke was probably more closely connected to Paul than he was with Jesus.

2. So Jesus is equal to God and subordinate to God? Someone needs to get their stories straight and I don't think it's me.

2a. You realize, you contradicted your point 2, yes?

3. Nothing you wrote shows Jesus' sacrifice to be a gift of unconditional love - It sounds more like "Kissing Hank's Ass". If I got the deal Jesus did, I'd have been beging the Romans to crucify me.

4. so, once again, the work has to be done BEFORE you ask for the work to be done? Interesting. If I have to clean up before Jesus and God will accept me, why suck up to them for acceptance? I'm the one who did the work. (according to you)

Oh the irony, you telling someone else to do research.

I will attribute such irony from you to be an expression of your blistering ignorance. And by blistering, I mean that I get blisters in my eyes from reading it.

In a word, no. Neither you nor I know who wrote the gospels, they are anonymous. Stop parroting tradition and do some damn research yourself.

Only someone with a complete lack of logical thinking would jump to such an extreme conclusion from what I wrote.

My statement is the most straight forward way of dispelling the retarded notion that Julius Ceasar and Jesus have equal amounts of actual historical evidence going for them.

Oh wait *gasp*, you mean that people sometimes fabricate writings in names of famous people?! I had no idea!! Thank you for showing me the truth, the light and the way!

I mean, it's not like it's well known that such forgeries in the names of Paul, John and Peter made it into the new testament or anything...

Such bullshit, we know nothing of the sort. But feel free to actually substantiate the claim. Remember, parroting traditions does not count as "history research". Even if your supposed eye witnesses had written something, of course their stories must stand up to scrutiny. You really mean you just take people's word for that the stuff they claim is true? If that is the case, I have a bridge in China I want to sell to you. I saw it with my own eyes!

Oh please, give me a fucking break. How do you know you have 2nd or 3rd copies, and what are those copies? Enlighten me, I really want to know. Also, "explicitly verbatim" is what it means to copy something, was that supposed to impress me?

1. They believe it is the word of god, which is why they bother at all.

2. The telephone game was played before the authors wrote down the oral tradition that reached them. I already said as much, didn't you get that?

3. Thousands of copies huh? If you mean fragments, then you're right for once.

Though the vast majority comes from the late middle ages, almost none from the first centuries. As for the rest of your claim here, I will quote Bart Ehrman from Misquoting Jesus: "There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament." (p 90). You should read that book, which is explicitly on this subject. Turns out, the scribes were actually human and thus made lots of mistakes. You confidence in the purity of the preserved text is vastly overstated. Vastly.

But that doesn't matter. Even if we had the actual original of any gospel, how does that prove anything? Would having the original of Beowulf prove that Beowulf really fought a dragon?

 

Are you serious? You are the one who have to establish that these fantastic stories actually took place. I'm the skeptic, I point out that your case for that is absolutely pathetic. Just as pathetic as you keep repeating you know the authors. You don't.

My research? I am summarizing well known biblical scholarship for your benefit. Have you even heard of textual criticism? It has been known since the 19th century that the traditionally attributed authors of the gospels are not the authors, that the gospels are not historical accounts but instead religious propaganda pieces, written so that you will believe in Jesus as Christ. Pick up a college textbook on the new testament! Educate yourself!

Of course, the reverse is true. If you can show me that the traditionally attributed authors really did write the gospels, and that they are historical accounts, then I will change my mind. Show me your "research". (Prediction: All I will get is more parroting of baseless traditions.)

Quote:

Science doesn't explain anything beyond our comprehension

BINGO!

Hello McFly!

So why are you clinging to naked assertions that are beyond human comprehension? Isn't it more likely that YOU merely like the idea of a super hero saving you? Isn't it more likely that these god claims and holy books of all religins past and present, are nothing but myth that people like believing?

I can utter the claim, "My snarfwidget is real", and certainly science cannot comprehend it. So is my snarwidget real because you cant prove it isn't?

Cap,

I want you to explain to ME, right now, how a dog has anything to do with human beefs and suffering, while claiming that a god exists.

AS IT STANDS right now, I have to make a tough decision to do the right thing and end the life of my mom's dog. She is old and ridden with arthritus.

Nature, to me explains this. My emotional side wants to eek out every moment for this lab, who sees everyone as a friend. My pragmatic side sees that with this progressive desease, there is only so much I can do.

My question to you is WHAT DID THE DOG DO, if postulating an all powerful being who can pre-emptively prevent suffering?

I don't think of her as a prop. I think of my mom's dog as part of my life, part of my family.

If your supposed claimed super hero's focus is the human species, why would such innocent beings, like my mom's dog be subject to such decline, if preventable by an all powerful being?

Nature explains her decline. Nature explains my denial in facing facts, in wanting her to live on, and why I have delayed it for so long. Magic is nothing but denial of facts.

If your magical god existed, then this wonderful dog, would not suffer. She suffers because of nature, because of age, not because of Allah, Vishnu or Yahweh.

G(g)ods don't exist, but if I could make one up, my god would be this dog. She's allway's happy and always wants to be friends with everyone. But come Monday, I am going to be torn appart by reality.

Any god that anyone wants to postulate right now, I would KICK IN THE FUCKING NUTS!

Since one does not exist, I realize all that I can say is "THIS SUCKS" and nature and reality is not magic, good or bad.

Brian37 wrote:

My question to you is WHAT DID THE DOG DO, if postulating an all powerful being who can pre-emptively prevent suffering?

Why would the dog had to have done anything?  Did God promise you and your dog not to let you both feel pain? 

Brian37 wrote:

I don't think of her as a prop. I think of my mom's dog as part of my life, part of my family.

If your supposed claimed super hero's focus is the human species, why would such innocent beings, like my mom's dog be subject to such decline, if preventable by an all powerful being?

This example reminds me of John 9:1-3; 

 "As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.  And His disciples asked Him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?'  Jesus answered, 'It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents, but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in Him.'" 

Of course when that was said, no one knew what that was suppose to mean.  They learened later however,  just as many other things they didn't understand at the time. 

Brian37 wrote:

Nature explains her decline. Nature explains my denial in facing facts, in wanting her to live on, and why I have delayed it for so long. Magic is nothing but denial of facts.

...or an excuse to not believe.  right?

What is nature?  Why is it that way?  You'd think after so many thousands of years of creatures suffering from arthritus that it would have adapted to prevent it.

Brian37 wrote:

If your magical god existed, then this wonderful dog, would not suffer. She suffers because of nature, because of age, not because of Allah, Vishnu or Yahweh.

Really.  Now this isn't asking you to prove a negative.  I'd like you to reference for me where anything suggests the God of Jacob would not allow your dog to suffer and why He would not allow it.  I of course use the word "anything" as literally.  where in any book or any reference does it suggest this? 

Brian37 wrote:

G(g)ods don't exist, but if I could make one up, my god would be this dog. She's allway's happy and always wants to be friends with everyone. But come Monday, I am going to be torn appart by reality.

I know where you're coming from.  I've been there myself.

Brian37 wrote:

Any god that anyone wants to postulate right now, I would KICK IN THE FUCKING NUTS!

Since one does not exist, I realize all that I can say is "THIS SUCKS" and nature and reality is not magic, good or bad.

You will be angry.  No one said that's wrong.  Unlike religion suggests,  God would want you to express your anger toward Him.  He would then want you to listen with an open mind while he reveiled to you why certain things must take place.  Don't ask me that personal question.  I dont' know you or your dog, but God knows both of you whether you want to deny His existance or not. 

Di66en6ion wrote:

1 & 2: So your god has the mentality of a teenager? He leaves you a son who suicides by cop and a book written by other men but can't seem to love you enough to let you do what you want to do?

Just like I guess your parents can't seem to love you enough to let you screw up your life and the lives of those around you.

Where by the way in the Bible does it say you don't have the free will to "do what you want to do."?

Di66en6ion wrote:

Your god makes demands that are completely counterintuitive to his supposedly loving nature. Isn't this passage implicitly stating that there are in fact other gods out there? It would be easy to make the equivocation to idols but that's an entirely seperate commandment.

"god" is defined as any entity or being that is of higher power than you.  Therefore, of course it's implied that there are other god's out there... unless you feel you are all powerful.

Di66en6ion wrote:

3: Uh, nice strawman I guess but once again this expresses another paradox. Is god perfect or is he human? Are we made in his image mentally as well as physically? Has your god not made it past the 'sticks and stones' phase of his childhood yet? How can such a supposedly advanced being take issue with a few ignorant words from a mere human? Oh wait... maybe this was written in a book in an age where everyone thought witches could cast spells on others...

Have parents (in general) gotten past that stage? yet most will not allow their children to badmouth them.  What's the difference here?

When it comes down to it, to blaspheme God's name, you'd first have to know him, then have enough hatred and anger toward him in your heart to take his name in vain.   It's what's in your heart that counts, not just words. 

It kind of goes along the lines of, be slow to anger.

Di66en6ion wrote:

5: I ultimately feel sorry for anyone who thinks marriage will secure their relationship in a world where people can physically do whatever they want regardless of what laws say. If someone's going to cheat on their lover before marriage they'll do it after too. No amount of praying will help, sorry. 

This coming from the one that claims God won't let you do whatever you want.  It's apparent that you can.  Doesn't mean it's right.

It's a guideline for life.  Obviously even to you, adultery is not ok.  Just because the law is written doesn't mean everyone's going to follow it.  right?

Di66en6ion wrote:

To "desire wrongfully" is once again relative. How are desires wrong?

See definition in previous post between us.  in the later part of the definition where it says "without regard".  Those are the key words

Di66en6ion wrote:

Only if they interfere with those laws right? Those social contracts created by men right? Rights of others? Slavery was legal in this country less than 150 years ago. Why did those rights change? People defended slavery with biblical passages...

Right, but if you were anything of a Biblical scholar, it would have been clear as day how off our country was on that.  Though if you spoke up at the time, you'd have probably been shot.

The slaves of the Bible "that were considered ok to have" were first of all willfully there.  They were also not imprisoned, but were free to leave anytime.  They were chastised for doing wrong, but not for running away.  They were also told to leave after a period of time, to which in response they could say no, I want to stay or chose to go on their own at some point. 

Doesn't sound a bit like the slaves of our past.

Di66en6ion wrote:

9: Respect is earned, not automatically granted because someone birthed you. When do you lose respect for someone? Would you still respect your father if he killed your mother or vice versa? Respect with respect to what? Respect their ideas, emotional states, way of life? Can/should a parent's hate or blatently false ideas be respected? Am I simply supposed to respect my mother and father's genes which created me or the day they conceived me? Respect means nothing without a referent; 'parent', 'father', 'mother' has many meanings.

You are right to say respect is earned and for them to see respect from you, they'd have to earn it. 

It comes down to the fact that you exist because they allowed it.  If they didn't want you to exist, you would not exist from them.  It's just simply a reverence for the fact that they are your parents, they are the reason you are alive.  Nothing more. 

Don't get this mistaken with those who accidentally get pregnant.  They still chose to let you live. 

The Bible explicitly states in many areas that you should respect another and then quickly adds assuming they're respecting you (very paraphrased obviously). 

Parents have expectations toward their children written in the Bible too.  Your implications go beyond the specific laws that were mentioned and into further teachings within the scriptures. 

Just like "do not murder"  You question justly killing someone.  It never said do not kill and other parts of the Bible talk about the difference.

 

Di66en6ion wrote:

10: So you're making the Sabbath out to be any arbitrary day of the week? There are many jobs that require some people to work weeks at a time while alternating to some weeks of straight vacation inbetween. The whole points is that this is dogmatic, the bible says it's a holy day so then everyone must honor it without question. It's outdated with respect to society.

and yet the majority of society still has one. 

The week was designed from this idea.  It's why it's 7 days.  It's understood even medically that at least 1 day a week to rest is the healthiest way to live. 

It shows you the best way to do it.  Doesn't mean again everyone follows it.

Di66en6ion wrote:

I could tell you that your god broke some of these in one form or another or how they're internally inconsistant with traditional characteristics applied to god but you'd simply throw out apologetics. In fact you already have, "there's nothing there that says you can't destroy what you yourself have created.", your god created the laws so he can break them when he sees fit without rebuke, what a perfect excuse that exempts you from questioning your own beliefs. Oh hey this is starting to sound familiar...

I would love you to.

The quote you quoted me on was in reference to God killing people specifically. 

Not that I can see that he broke any, but he created the laws for us, not himself.  God is not of this world, therefore, why would he need to follow laws made for this world?

Di66en6ion wrote:

And you have simply proven my point, the "teachings" of the bible are completely relative to society, no universal truths to be found.

Strange to hear you say that and yet every society in the world that has learned of the scriptures has at least understood them if not as a whole, individually.  This implying that the truths may in fact be universal. 

They may not be embraced, but they are understood.  The more you write, the more it seems you prove my point, that it's very clear unless you want to add contingencies which then those are covered elsewhere in the Bible.

Di66en6ion wrote:

When I said gay in that context I meant the lifestyle of course, the sexual attraction two of the same sex share with eachother. Is it a sin, in your eyes, for two women or two men to have sexual intercourse of some kind?

In my understanding, God created sex in a specific manner.  There's a reason why women don't have penis' and men do.  It's wrong to me because that's not how God designed it. 

Just like any designer who created something for a specific job and then witnesses others abusing it or using it in some way they'd see as wrong.  Do they not have a right to be upset about it?

Just to clarify however, I don't hate gays or lesbians.  I have friends who are homosexual.  They know where I stand on it and respect that and I still respect them for who they are and I still respect them as my friends. 

Hate toward any group is a sect invention and is not Biblical.

Di66en6ion wrote:

Is it only alright for heterosexual couples to have sex because it produces offspring? What about vestigial hetero couples who are infertile? Hell, what about hermaphrodites? What about the fact that homosexual behaviour is observed in all social species?

murder, theft, rape, physical abuse, etc.  All behaviour that is observed in all social species.   Does that make it all ok? 

It's not only ok for heterosexual couples because it produces offspring.  The catholics might say that, but I believe birth control is ok to use.

Di66en6ion wrote:

 

Why should people be at fault for things they cannot possibly control without having chunks of their brain removed?

It's the actions, not the feelings that are taken into account from what I understand.

Di66en6ion wrote:

Your version of "understood" garners no facts, no new information, no predictions with respect to science. That in of itself proves that it was never in there to begin with. Meet my friend confirmation bias.

So... then you have nothing to back yourself up on this...

Di66en6ion wrote:

An easy and widespread example was an article put out years ago where they analyized Moby Dick enough until they found the prediction of the assasination of world leaders/prime minister. Fact: If you want to find something hard enough, you'll find it, no matter what. A story full of metaphors and allegory is even moreso easy to manipulate.

Of course it is.  How do you think there are so many different denominations of Christianity in the world.  So many people were convinced they had it right that they forgot to actually look at their findings.

Forget analyzing, all you have to do is take it in context and 90% of it is quite clear.

Di66en6ion wrote:

Culture changes, you do mental jumprope to make it fit with society and say it was there all along. End of story.

Sure, as much as you come up with excuses to make sure it doesn't fit.

Look, it's obvious the only defense you had for any of it went beyond the text that was in question. 

e.g. "sure, that makes sense on the basic level" (which is all that was presented), "but what about if this happens"

ok, if you really want to discuss the ins and outs of each law, it's really not that complicated.  Pick something specific and we can go from there.

Why would the dog had to have done anything?  Did God promise you and your dog not to let you both feel pain?

Allowing utterly pointless suffering while having the power to have prevented it would make a 'God' a sadistic prick.

Which on the face of it reinforces the idea of an evil 'God'. in practice , it is just part of a lame attempt to obscure the clear fact that such events are fundamentally inconsistent with the concept of the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent God, by invoke all sorts of mystical convoluted 'explanations'.

To continue to believe in such a God demonstrates moral and intellectually bankruptcy.

Wrong - simply further demolishes any justification for believing in such a being.

Thank you for conceding that the Old Testament god was a particularly nasty and uncaring thing.

To answer an earlier response, degenerative diseases, especially occurring after the peak reproductive years, will produce little or no selective pressure for evolution to work on, so are entirely consistent with natural observations, but demonstrate clear problems for any idea of a skillful 'Designer' with only benevolent intent.

Clear-eyed observation of reality makes the non-existence of a God, especially a morally respectable one, vastly more reasonable than there being some real external entity behind your delusions about an invisible friend.

NOTE: Brian37 asked me to respond for him - he is still emotionally torn by the experience.

So again I ask, what's the difference between your god and a human?

So you're a polytheist then?

Many people believe that simply being conscious is of a godly nature.

Yet parents will rebuke a child outright for being obscene, one thing your god can't seem to be able to do.

Handing a note written by a great great great grandfather that says you shouldn't cuss will do nothing to stop a child from doing so. Parental analogy fails.

The whole notion that marriage will bring joy or solidarity is a tad flawed, sounds a lot like a self fulfilling prophecy to me. I've seen a handful of couples who stick together because of the religious dogma, living a hallow shell of a union for the sake of society's wishes. Is this an ok way to spend one's life, fulfilling god's wishes at the expense of your own?

What's without regard is all the same. If someone fosters your obsession then is that going too far if it's consentual? Or what if someone has an extremely wide area of personal space and is easily offended? 

Oh that's right, you have the correct scholarly interpretation then is that it? So it's moved from full-on slavery to stockholm syndrome. Easy to retrospectivly make excuses after history has run its course.

Once I am dependent and able to take care of myself there is no law that says I must or should continue to respect my mother for just birthing me. Chosing to let me live in of itself has absolutely no bearing on who I am today, I had no say so or control over the act.

If your god allows my existence it still means nothing, it gives no purpose in of itself, he could take it away in the blink of an eye and guess what... I wouldn't miss a thing.

Please don't tell me you're attributing the concept of rest to the bible...

Why would I then need to follow any laws if such a ruler does not have any scruples himself? Because he created us? Your assertions are just that, empty with no reasoning, an infinite regress of excuses. It may not be a contradiction but it's definitely hypocritical.

Yet a lot of those societies were forced at the point of a sword into Christian "domesticity". There's no way to differentiate between this as truth or self-fulfilling prophecy. You also seem to think that the bible lays claims on such simple notions or guidelines when they were clearly in writting hundreds/thousands of years before it.

You assume god designed it or guided it? Are you a creationist?

Not really, if a designer saw something he created doing something completely unintentional he'd most likely be very intrigued but that's besides the point...

Did you ever consider the posibility that homosexual behavior does have a reason or do you only listen to the mindless dogma that's served to you on a platter? Seems pretty arrogant to think you completely understand God through some text written by men...

Do you think you'd have the right to be upset if you were attracted to other men if you were gay? After all God designed you that way, obviously. 

Altruism, care for the sick, mourning, care for the young, group dynamics, etc.. are all observed in social species too. Does that make it ok? 

You didn't respond to hermaphrodites, are they special in god's creation?

So you'd deny other's their urges while fulfilling your own?

I had no choice in being born. When you base life on biology, and not magical superstition, PAIN, physical or emotional, MAKES SENSE.

BUT, when you go by the claim of a super natural body guard in the sky being "all powerfull" and "all loving", it makes no sense.

My dog suffered from a NATURAL cause, not from a "master plan".

God can no more promise to stop pain than Micky Mouse.

GO LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF "IF".

I am asking you "IF" we, for the sake of argument only, go by your model, "Why would my dog suffer at all?" I'm sure you've had pets and I am sure when you know of something they are suffering from, AND you can stop it, you would.

In your model "God" makes no promises? Why should I worship a being who cant at least see fit that a friendly loving animal with no mean bone in it's body, keep it from suffering.?Your god is all powerfull according to you.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Caposkia, making one particular day of the week the day of rest is NOT the best solution, because many things people would like to do as part of leisure time rely on someone else working, even just to supply basic services such as power and transport. Allowing people options as to when to take a break from work on any day of the week that is convenient for them is much better.

So yet more bad/poorly thought thru advice from that book. It really is not worth the paper its printed on.

Such is life as we know it today. 

What of the times back when it was written into law.  also, if people were following it, are you saying we'd be so lame as to not figure out something to do on our leisure that didn't require someone else to work?

Do you really think things through before commenting? 

Right.  So you feel pain... therefore God cannot exist.  Nice logic.

jcgadfly wrote:

Caposkia,

If God is love (as Scripture claims) how can that God get anything, let alone glory, from the suffering of any of the creatures you claim He created?

Doesn't the death freak God of the Bible seem a little contradictory to you?

No, He doesn't seem contradictory.  From the perspective you point out, I understand why you'd think so.

You say it as if suffering is something that he wants for all his creation. 

It's clearly understood that assumption is contrary to what is implied in scripture. 

God is love in the perfect form.  That's what is understood.  To better define what that means is a little more difficult.  what is understood is that He's always there whether you know it or not, whether you want Him to be or not, whether you believe or not. 

He has made many promises in scripture that will allude to that love that is claimed. 

God promised to take care of spiritual needs and to always hold us, love us, care for us, spiritually.  It is also clear in scripture that He has left it up to us to take care of our phyisical needs. 

Just because you see physical suffering around the world does not indicate that God does not love them or that being, or that He is ignoring them.  Unlike people, God actually follows through with what He claims literally and each time.  That is something people have a hard time grasping.

This means that when it is up to us to take care of our physical needs, that's not just ourselves alone, but those around us.  It is very possible to stop world hunger... it would just take the effort of all capable people around the world.  It's possible to aleviate many things that ail us in life, but again.  The effort and unity of basically everyone would be required...  Unfortunately, the difficulty in uniting everyone for the purpose of bettering something is the reason why these particular issues still exist. 

Is God glorified by the suffering of others?  No.  I think most Christians would agree with that answer.  Is it God's will to allow them all to suffer?  Again, no.  To really understand all the suffering and pain in the world, it might be reasonable to first look at why it started in the first place. 

Now after all that, if you're talking about death.  I can't answer for you why animals die when it was humans that did wrong.  I could only give you theories.  There is nothing in scripture to explain why that is so and there's nothing anywhere to claim that because animals die, God does not exist.

 

 

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

that's pretty solid.  (sarcasm intended)  If I used that as my defense... do you really think I'd get far?

Your claim was that science and your bible reinforced eachother. The explanatory power of science lays in its ability to make predictions. Can you give me just ONE prediction the bible makes that is concise that science will confirm within the next 10-20 years? Give some examples of something mentioned in the bible that has occured in science since the industrial revolution.

 

 

Caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

Your context right? You still don't get it.

not my context.  i say what i have learned through research and study. 

Your conclusion... so clarify.

Everyone interprets everything differently, you assume that your interpretations is correct because of the way you think you have studied it and that everyone else will come up with the same conclusions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAIpRRZvnJg

 

Caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

As much as you come up with excuses to make sure it does fit... with no evidence to back it up.

the difference is, you can actually research and find information for the claims I present.  They're not my own.

The bottom line is all you can do is point to scripture or talk about the voice inside your head. You claim to "know" god yet can't seem to come up with any additional information exterior to the bible. You make the same mistake that many people do with externalizing your thoughts, fears, joys, etc...

 

Caposkia wrote:

Di66en6ion wrote:

Obviously the only offense you have is naked assertions and ambiguous notions of what's true.

I only answer what you ask and from what I know.   I again don't know everything, but everything isn't what's in question.  Specifics are.  Do you want to focus on those?

I could also claim the same about you.  That statment is ignorance.   Sorry but it is.  Do some homework on it next time.

Your claims aren't naked assertions? I'm sorry but you have nothing to convince anyone otherwise:

Zero evidence any miracles in the bible actually occured: Check

Zero evidence for disembodied minds: Check

 

 

The bottom line is that what you think is incongruent with reality the way most of us view it; with no supporting hard evidence you're going to be perpetually stuck in the situation you're in when trying to convey your opinions. I don't care what you believe at the end of the day and I'd probably rather you stay the way you are then come in line with anyone's opinion on this board. The only problem I have with faithful people is their ability to automatically discredit other faiths as automatically wrong even when those other faiths have just as strong emotional conviction as their own. Contorting science to fit a vacuous world view isn't going to prove a thing, anyone can do it, whether or not you can contribute anything to science from your world view is the real question.

 

Of course, unlike you.

There is still no reason to mandate a specific day, and insist everyone observe it - that is not about leisure, that is about insisting on observance of a holy day to celebrate the God.

Many people are quite happy to work at times when others are not and vice versa. It should be left as far as practical up to the individual, that is the intelligent approach.

It is the rigidity of most religious ritual observance that is lame.

You shall not be spared caposkia for your worship of your fake god yahweh. it shall not free you from the corruption.

H̭͇͗ͪͧ̆̚ͅe͉̝ͧ ́w̭̿͋̇h̵͔͚̹̖̔̌o͕̰̲̩̟͈̒̔̎ ̝̮̮̭̆̈́ͤ̈̃w͖͚̪̭̣ͭͫå̭̪̞it̖̤ͭ͆̊͊̅͘ṡ̬͂ͪͮ͂̎͋͞ ̼̅ͣ̈́̅̌͟b͓̽̅ͦ̇͡ḙ̙̻̳̹͙̉̾͛ͮͦh̶̘͉̱͎ͦ͑́̆̆̃̚i͓̣̩̯̐͌̒n̵̟͉͔̬̻͈͖ͪͦͫͬ̔̊͆d̢̬͚̉ͩ̋ ̣͈̲̐̅ͅͅͅt̼̖̙͉͖̥̾́h͘ĕ̶͒̋͐̾ͯ͂ ̵̥̰͚̤͙̭̭w̬̤̜̅̆̚a̫͎̠̖ͥl̼̄̚ḷ̳̣͕̝̹͊́̈̅͊̚.͙͖̽̒ͨͧ̀͒ͫ͡
͆̈́ͧ̽̾̈́̋H͂ͭ̄̇̔҉̮̰̳e̶͉͍̼͇͙ͭͩͩ̃̐̇ ͥ͏w͉̦ͤ̔i̓ͩ̒̅̈́͏͕̫͎l̤̝̅̊ͮͅl̽ͨͭ̏̆҉̬̩̞͙̩̟͈ ̹͚͖̜͕̊ͮ̂ͧ̿̃͡s̖̗̹̯̱̈́̓ͨi͎͎͖̘̭̠ͫ̆̑n̨̤ģ͕̬̦̗̘̱͑ ̢̹̪͈̉͛t͙͈̯͔̎͂͒͡h̙̹̀͊ě̙̚͢ ̣͈͑̾̊̍ͤ̚̚sͭ̀́̈õ̵͉͉͖̩̱̥̔n̖̣͌̌̍̒ͬ͊g̷̤̱̻̜̳̭͂̈ͪ̽̓ ̪͖̠̯͕̲̹t̜͇̗͈͆́̓̓̔̑ͬͅh̡ͩ̏̿̌̈̈́͗ḁ̶̫̳̳͔̋̎ẗ̢̺̙̩́̐ ̣͇̞ͮ͋͒̽e͇̤̘ͣ̿͞n̳͚̜̟͑ͅd͜s̘̫̩̜̞̣͊̑̅ͅ ̞͍͓̩̠̫t̷͔͙͚̥̹̞̒͐̂ͯ̽ͥ̉ḣ̜̝̗̇̈́ͫ͠è̹͇̬̦̯ͨͦͩ̊ ̬̩̩̈́̒̎̐ͩw̐ͭͬ̈́҉̻o̗̲̲̒̌̋̎r̵̻̻̭̂ͪ̚ͅl̠̠̠̍̚ḑ̖̳̩ͯ̃ͮ̎̀ͅ.͓̲̞͇͑͞
͕̺͈̰̆ͩ͐̔̈́ͤ͜H̴̤̭̩͐̊e̞̻̰ ̓ͯ̉҉̘̗̭c̭̻͒͛ͦ̂͊̚o̜̲̞̠̲ͦ͒ͫ͞m̮̬̖̘̼e̝̖͓s̬͎̻̍͜ͅ.̻̜̍̒̏̀͠

H҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘Ȅ̐̑̒̚̕̚ IS C̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̚̕̚̕̚̕̚̕̚̕̚OMI҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘NG > ͡҉҉ ̵̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̿̿̿̚ ҉ ҉҉̡̢̡̢̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑ ͡҉҉

H҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘Ȅ̐̑̒̚̕̚ IS C̒̓̔̿̿̿̕̚̚̕̚̕̚̕̚̕̚̕̚OMI҉̵̞̟̠̖̗̘NG > ͡҉҉ ̵̡̢̛̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠͇̊̋̌̍̎̏̿̿̿̚ ҉ ҉҉̡̢̡̢̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̖̗̘̙̜̝̞̟̠̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑̒̓̔̊̋̌̍̎̏̐̑ ͡҉҉

Z҉A҉L҉G҉O̚̕̚ Z҉A҉L҉G҉O̚̕̚ Z҉A҉L҉G҉O̚̕̚

 

 Your claim was that science and your bible reinforced eachother. The explanatory power of science lays in its ability to make predictions. Can you give me just ONE prediction the bible makes that is concise that science will confirm within the next 10-20 years? Give some examples of something mentioned in the bible that has occured in science since the industrial revolution.

Everyone interprets everything differently, you assume that your interpretations is correct because of the way you think you have studied it and that everyone else will come up with the same conclusions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAIpRRZvnJg

The bottom line is all you can do is point to scripture or talk about the voice inside your head. You claim to "know" god yet can't seem to come up with any additional information exterior to the bible. You make the same mistake that many people do with externalizing your thoughts, fears, joys, etc...

Your claims aren't naked assertions? I'm sorry but you have nothing to convince anyone otherwise:

Zero evidence any miracles in the bible actually occured: Check

Zero evidence for disembodied minds: Check

The bottom line is that what you think is incongruent with reality the way most of us view it;

with no supporting hard evidence you're going to be perpetually stuck in the situation you're in when trying to convey your opinions.

I don't care what you believe at the end of the day and I'd probably rather you stay the way you are then come in line with anyone's opinion on this board.

 

The only problem I have with faithful people is their ability to automatically discredit other faiths as automatically wrong even when those other faiths have just as strong emotional conviction as their own.

 

Contorting science to fit a vacuous world view isn't going to prove a thing,

anyone can do it,

whether or not you can contribute anything to science from your world view is the real question.

jcgadfly wrote:

Of course, that sits in direct opposition to the event that you believe led to your salvation - Jesus being beaten and killed for the glory of his father. God did get glory from that, yes?

Or did Jesus not suffer (in which case his sacrifice would mean nothing because he didn't experience what we humans would in those circumstances)?

well now you're parallelling the topic of conversation to suffering by punishment vs. the seemingly random suffering from disease or serious injury, allergic reactions etc. around the world. 

Either way, niether of what you claimed is true.

It does not say that 'God was glorified' or 'got glory from' the suffering of Jesus.  It says he was pleased by it.  It goes on to explain the reasoning for Gods pleasure was due to the fact that the punishment was on Jesus because Jesus was bearing the weight of the sins of the world, past present and future.  The punishment was for all those sins. 

It says in the gospels that God was glorified by the resurrection of Jesus, not the suffering and from the works Jesus did while on Earth.  The suffering was needed to take the punishment from us and the death as well.  The overcoming of death was to show the power of God, which glorified Him because he overtook even death. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

So the unnecessary death of Jesus (being omnipotent, God could extend forgiveness without blood sacrifices) was simply to satisfy a sadistic being? He was pleased by the punishment - sounds like good old fashioned blood lust to me. I'm surprised it didn't describe God's erection from watching events unfold.

How hard is it for an eternal, deathless being to "overcome" death?  It cheapens Jesus' sacrifice rather than enriching it.

The death of Jesus was necessary for our salvation. 

Are you saying it's wrong for a family to be "pleased" with justice being served in a court against someone who had wronged them?  It's the same idea.  Say a daughter had been raped or murdered by this person.  Should the parents not be pleased when that person who raped or murdered the daughter got their justified sentence?  Those parents must be sadistic!

God could not extend forgiveness without blood sacrifice unless he goes against the laws he had put in place.  God is the same always.   That would mean that God would have had to "change his mind" about what he has so consistently enforced, ultimately deeming Him unreliable and untrustworthy to those who followed Him. 

What does overcoming death mean to you?  Do you find it something fairly easy to do?  The point was, it was the proof and evidence that Jesus was in fact "the way, the truth and the life".  No one can overcome death except through God himself.  If Jesus stayed "dead", there would be no promise of eternal life.  Through Jesus we have eternal life.  His resurrection proved that he can in fact promise that.  That's why he needed to "overcome death".   Do you feel it still cheapens it?

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

So the unnecessary death of Jesus (being omnipotent, God could extend forgiveness without blood sacrifices) was simply to satisfy a sadistic being? He was pleased by the punishment - sounds like good old fashioned blood lust to me. I'm surprised it didn't describe God's erection from watching events unfold.

How hard is it for an eternal, deathless being to "overcome" death?  It cheapens Jesus' sacrifice rather than enriching it.

The death of Jesus was necessary for our salvation. 

Are you saying it's wrong for a family to be "pleased" with justice being served in a court against someone who had wronged them?  It's the same idea.  Say a daughter had been raped or murdered by this person.  Should the parents not be pleased when that person who raped or murdered the daughter got their justified sentence?  Those parents must be sadistic!

God could not extend forgiveness without blood sacrifice unless he goes against the laws he had put in place.  God is the same always.   That would mean that God would have had to "change his mind" about what he has so consistently enforced, ultimately deeming Him unreliable and untrustworthy to those who followed Him. 

What does overcoming death mean to you?  Do you find it something fairly easy to do?  The point was, it was the proof and evidence that Jesus was in fact "the way, the truth and the life".  No one can overcome death except through God himself.  If Jesus stayed "dead", there would be no promise of eternal life.  Through Jesus we have eternal life.  His resurrection proved that he can in fact promise that.  That's why he needed to "overcome death".   Do you feel it still cheapens it?

As I wrote in the parenthetical, it was unnecessary for an omnipotent God to need to fuel forgiveness and salvation with blood.

Or are you saying that God is subject to Jewish law? He certainly is not subject to his own edicts - too much evidence exists to the contrary.

Pleased? No - gaining pleasure from another's punishment is actually pretty gruesome. Closure and a satisfaction that justice was done makes more sense. Happiness at the punishment of another just makes God look more like a sadist.

For me, overcoming death means not being afraid of it.

I didn't lose that fear until I stopped being a Christian. My point was a being that could not die would have zero problems overcoming death. Basically God put on a grisly show for his own amusement so he could offer people something that he could have offered whenever he wished. He could also have done it without making people have to kiss his butt forever. A being of unconditional would have no strings on his/her offer. What does that tell you about your God?

So yes, the three day vacation that Jesus took was a cheap entertainment for Yahweh. It gave nothing for nothing and cost absolute, unquestioning obedience for the people who think they're getting something.

jcgadfly wrote:

So the unnecessary death of Jesus (being omnipotent, God could extend forgiveness without blood sacrifices) was simply to satisfy a sadistic being? He was pleased by the punishment - sounds like good old fashioned blood lust to me. I'm surprised it didn't describe God's erection from watching events unfold.

How hard is it for an eternal, deathless being to "overcome" death?  It cheapens Jesus' sacrifice rather than enriching it.

The death of Jesus was necessary for our salvation. 

Are you saying it's wrong for a family to be "pleased" with justice being served in a court against someone who had wronged them?  It's the same idea.  Say a daughter had been raped or murdered by this person.  Should the parents not be pleased when that person who raped or murdered the daughter got their justified sentence?  Those parents must be sadistic!

God could not extend forgiveness without blood sacrifice unless he goes against the laws he had put in place.  God is the same always.   That would mean that God would have had to "change his mind" about what he has so consistently enforced, ultimately deeming Him unreliable and untrustworthy to those who followed Him. 

What does overcoming death mean to you?  Do you find it something fairly easy to do?  The point was, it was the proof and evidence that Jesus was in fact "the way, the truth and the life".  No one can overcome death except through God himself.  If Jesus stayed "dead", there would be no promise of eternal life.  Through Jesus we have eternal life.  His resurrection proved that he can in fact promise that.  That's why he needed to "overcome death".   Do you feel it still cheapens it?

God could not extend forgiveness without blood sacrifice

Di66en6ion wrote:

 Your claim was that science and your bible reinforced eachother. The explanatory power of science lays in its ability to make predictions. Can you give me just ONE prediction the bible makes that is concise that science will confirm within the next 10-20 years? Give some examples of something mentioned in the bible that has occured in science since the industrial revolution.

I'm not sure what you're looking for here.  Yes, you've made a clear request, but are you saying you want me to predict what science will discover in the near future and when?  If I knew that, I'd not only be rich, but I'd be presenting the discovery myself!

Examples of something mentioned in teh Bible that has occured in science since the ind. rev.

ok.  The more extreme weather that has been caused by the Ind. Rev.

If social science is acceptable, then the loss of respect for parents/elders generally speaking

Loss of respect for moral issues generally speaking.

Luke warm Christians.

That would be directly related to science anyway. 

If you want to discuss any of those, let's try and stay specific and be precise on what you're looking for.

Di66en6ion wrote:

Your claims aren't naked assertions? I'm sorry but you have nothing to convince anyone otherwise:

Zero evidence any miracles in the bible actually occured: Check

Zero evidence for disembodied minds: Check

If I had physical or specific evidence (the only evidence I'm aware that you'd accept), they wouldn't be considered "miracles"

What evidences would you accept for disembodied minds?  I'm willing to work with you on this.

I'm trying to keep opinions out of this.  Most on here don't seem to.  Same applies to you.  Hard evidence would make me question what I know.  Obviously it's not that easy is it.  You have to be willing to accept the source.  Clarify for me what sources you will accept... specifically.

Di66en6ion wrote:

 

The only problem I have with faithful people is their ability to automatically discredit other faiths as automatically wrong even when those other faiths have just as strong emotional conviction as their own.

I can reference specific logical reasoning for my discrediting any.    If you're applying that to me, you again have not done your homework on me.

Again, what would you accept logically thinking now about my world view and what God is.