• Hail Guest!
    We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
  • Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
  • Hail Guest!,
    Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
  • Hail Guest!
    Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!

Okay. The Bible SUCKS!

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GannonCM

Guest
"A book cannot have an intent."

OK - let me be as technical as can be. People write books. The books that people write propose one's intent. Therefore, a book has a specific intent - the intent of the people who wrote it. But there is a factor that is different. The Bible is written by people inspired by the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 1). I am not trying to prove the Bible here. All I am saying is yes, a book CAN have an intent - by implication, a book's intent is the actual person's or groups intent of what they have written. If I write "The day is sunny - I hate it!" - you can "perceive" my intent several ways. But I have wrote those words, and those words have a specific intent. How you interpret it may or may not be the intent of my words. You may assume that I hate sunny days. That is not the case at all. The day is sunny, which produces heat, and I hate it because of the production of heat that I consider unbearable. So yes, books can have intent because, by implication, they were written by people. They are words transcribed to communicate a specific intent.

Secondly, you ask that God - I assume you mean God by the term HE, for God is neither male nor female, but is Spirit (John 4.24) - has told me that the intent of the Bible is not fear? Well, yes God has told me...

2 Timothy 1:7 God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but the Spirit of power and love and self-control.

Lastly, you said that perception is reality. Well, even the schools of philosophy believe that reality has no rightness or wrongness to it. I am afraid to use any examples because I do not want to offend anyone. In the study of Epistemology, for example, reality itself has no rightness or wrongness to it. It is the perception that has a rightness or wrongness.

Now perception can change into the rightness of reality. Here is an example. One thousand years ago, the world was considered flat. But even then, the world was still round. Our newly discovered perception that the world is round did not suddenly make the world shape into roundness. The reality of the matter is that the world has been, is, and always will be round. That has always been the reality of our Earth. However, it is the wrong perception to have considered it flat. It is now the right perception to consider it round. But the reality of its roundness has not changed one iota. To say perception is reality is to make many logical flaws and inconsistencies. If the world was perceived flat at one time, that means the world really was flat at that time - but we know that not to be the case. The world did not become round by virtue of us discovering it to be round. The world always was round - it was the perception that was wrong.
 
G

Guest

Guest
***The Bible is written by people inspired by the Holy Spirit***

Prove it, Give me one shred of proof, that some all powerfull being told them what to write in that book.
 
R

Roscoe

Guest
Arguing the Bible's stance on homosexuality from an Old Testament perspective only would justify such a response. But Homosexuality is identified as an act of immorality in the New Testament as well.

1 Corinthians 6

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...
 
G

GannonCM

Guest
Mishkam -

I cannot prove it. Only the Holy Spirit can open your eyes to believe this. I am not God - I cannot show you concrete evidence. All I can do, though, is show you the meaning of true Divine Love if that is what you want. But I cannot PROVE to you the Holy Spirit. You must be willing to accept this grace in your own time, for God will always stand at the door of your heart and knock to enter into it.

Baker -

I feel the need to reply to you, too. What you said is exactly the problem of our finiteness trying to comprehend the infinite and eternal. God is simply good, period. See, we tend to view goodness as simply a value judgment dependant on acts / consequences. But if this is all goodness means, then that would make God less than perfect, for God will have to depend on goodness.

I was going to write coherently, but a thought just crossed my mind that applies very concretely to this particular discussion of goodness. The movie A.I. proves this point perfectly. The cyborg child was able to only express good emotion. That is all he was programmed to do. But then you had the OTHER human son, who used the perception of goodness to convince the cyborg child that he needed a locket of his mother's hair. So he grabs a pair of scissors to get some of her hair. However, when the mother wakes up, she is startled and thinks the cyborg child's INTENT was to do something evil to her.

Even the Greek Philosophers believed that Zeus was simply an expression of goodness by nature. God is simply Good by God's own being. Who is the "creator" of free will? God is - since we are made in God's image and freedom is a virtue of existance. But God also determines what is good - for when God created female and male, "God SAW that all things were very good."

You are operating from a modernistic scientific level that believes, "Either...or...not both." Yet in our postmodern world, studies in Quantum Physics show that molecules can be two things at one time. Therefore, the either/or model of logic is being constantly questioned and slowly disproven by scientists and philosophers alike. A thing can be two things at one time. Therefore, God can both be good and determine what is good. God is good by virtue of just Being - but also determines what is good because by virtue of God Being good, anything that God creates must, by definition, be good as well. But humanity has not chosen this goodness - and seeks pride and self-sufficiency unless they accept the goodness of Divine Love in their lives.

Therefore, because post-modern scientists and philosophers are highly skeptical of the modernistic "either / or not both" model, the answer to the age-old question of "Is something good because God wills it, or does God will something to be good" can be "YES." Goodness is not something God is dependant on, nor is it something God can deny while creating some thing. God's being is just simply good, and nothing but goodness flows forth.

The problem of evil is a different question not suited, yet, for this topic.
 
G

GannonCM

Guest
Roscoe -

You are wrong about something. The passage in I Corinthians 6.9 is not "nor homosexuals." The actual word is "nor sodomites."

Going back to the Genesis story. The sins of Sodom included homosexuality, but it ALSO included the lack of hospitality. It included not being hospitable to foreigners in a strange place. Don't forget that there is a whole LIST of sins in the story of Sodom - and it is not limited ONLY to one sin. The Bible is clear that any person who claims to be a follower of Christ will open their hearts to the poor, the oppressed, the outcasts of society and those who are the least. See James 2 for a further explanation.
 
R

Roscoe

Guest
The seat of the issue you're debating can be answered in a philosophical argument.

First - we have the existence of man. Man is a personal being in that he can communicate and socialize and ask the question 'why am I here'. There is no other creature that does this. Yes, there is social order among various creatures but to date I do not know of any that stand around wondering 'why'. This personal nature came from somewhere - can the personal come from the impersonal? If not then it means that the personal nature of who we are is not a byproduct of evolution but is instead a direct result of being fashioned after its make which is also personal. That's argument number one for the existence of God. It's an oversimplification mind you.

Second - have you ever read a record of history? An ancient manuscript that clues us in to the past? Or maybe you've read some classic work that communicates some fantastic notion about humanity but it was written centuries ago. The point is that being personal as we are it is in our nature and by deduction, if there is a God and we are created in His image, then communication is in his nature too. Therefore it's not out of the realm of possibility to believe in times past that God spoke to men and they recorded what they heard.

But I've not offered proof as of yet. As for the proof - I point to all of creation. You may argue that creation can be explained through the 'big bang' theory and through evolution but that brings us back to the problem of man and his personal nature. Not to mention the problem of morality as well as the problem of knowledge.

If you do not accept nature as evidence then all that remains is to perceive God. And to do that requires the utilization of a spiritual 6th sense called faith. If you define faith as a 'blind acceptance' devoid of any evidence then you'll struggle here. If you define 'faith' as the seeing eye of religion then you'll fare much better.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I cannot prove it. Only the Holy Spirit can open your eyes to believe this. I am not God - I cannot show you concrete evidence. All I can do, though, is show you the meaning of true Divine Love if that is what you want. But I cannot PROVE to you the Holy Spirit. You must be willing to accept this grace in your own time, for God will always stand at the door of your heart and knock to enter into it.

You could have stopped at the first sentance, I didnt need the flowery fertilizer that most "religious people" will mask thier total lack of evidence for thier "beliefs".

Virtually every religion can be traced back to a point at which someone, somewhere claimed ... " God " told me... yada yada yada. And never is there a shred of evidence that anything of the sort happened. But because the world is and always has been, laden with weak minded people willing to believe what ever they are told, religion continues to prosper without an ounce of proof to back any of it up.
 
G

Guest

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

God has always asked us to submit ourselves to His will. His will is paramount.

<hr></blockquote>

Just out of curiousity, what is God's Will?

And as for creation, here's my personal belief.

I think that there is, by far, too much evidence supporting evolution to simply dismiss it out of hand.

I believe that God created the Earth (whether it was through the Big Bang or not, I don't know) and allowed life to evolve on the planet.

At some point, God decided that he didn't like how things were going, and he used an Ice Age to wipe things out, and started over again, creating things the way he wanted them to be.

This is why we haven't found a missing link, because there isn't one.

It also explains the word "replenish" used in Genesis to Adam and Eve.
 
R

Roscoe

Guest
Gannon - if I need to go through and give you all the details here I'll be happy to do so. But a couple of things. In context of what Paul's saying here there is no question that homosexual activity is one aspect of being a sodomite. Paul is listing a number of sexual activities and transitions into non-sexual immoral behavior on the word translated in my verse as 'homosexual'. The roots of the word itself come from 'arrhen' or 'arsen' (phonetical markers left out) which means 'male' and 'koite' (koytay) which means 'male sperm' or 'chambering'. The implication of the word here is one that clearly refers to sexual relations between men.

There's no question that the behavior of the sodomites was that of rudeness but to exclude the sin of homosexuality from the behavior of the sodomites belies a personal social agenda as opposed to objective interpretation. Didn't you say you were at a methodist seminary?
 
R

Roscoe

Guest
Just out of curiousity, what is God's Will?

That's a very individual question for the most part. Generally his will can be summed up in the answer to the qustion 'What is the greatest commandment?' The answer to which is 'Love the Lord your God with your entire being and love your neighbor as yourself'.

I think that there is, by far, too much evidence supporting evolution to simply dismiss it out of hand.

Evolution is a proven fact at certain levels. But as a method of explaining the diversity of flora/fauna I don't buy it. Even with an ice age there would be a fossil record and the amount of time, number of variants and much more is not sustained by the fossile record. There are too many missing links for me to accept the theory of evolution as it has been presented to me.
 
T

the great bob

Guest
You know what's interesting me the most? Ok, let's say for arguement, that God is real, that God is omnipotent. So...

1) Other Dieties, were they too real? Did they get wipped out by the Catholic take over? What's Allah doing? Is Buddah getting high or something? How come there are no other omnipotent beings?

2) If God is the only one, then why the freaken-a did he make us? Was he THAT bored with the universe?

3) Where are the Angels? You know, the ones that smite sinners with their blades of fire or what have you.

4) Where's that big hand? Why didn't it stop those planes from crashing into the Twin Towers? Why didn't it crush Rosie O'Donnell's annoying head?
 
G

Guest

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

That's a very individual question for the most part.

<hr></blockquote>

Is it really? It would seem that God's Will is God's Will.

How it affects us personally might be personal, but the basic drive should be toward one single goal that God has.

Do we exist solely for the purpose of worshipping God?

If so, that seems a little vain to me.
 
R

Roscoe

Guest
Is it really? It would seem that God's Will is God's Will.

How it affects us personally might be personal, but the basic drive should be toward one single goal that God has.

Do we exist solely for the purpose of worshipping God?

If so, that seems a little vain to me.

It depends upon how you define worship.

Let me go further then. In Genesis we see that God created man 'in his image'. We later see that God paraded all the animals of creation before Adam and they did not find a suitable partner for him. God said 'it is not good that man dwell alone'.

Now, if being created in the image of God then to me that last statement I quoted there tells me A LOT. I believe that God is self sufficient but I believe this quotes gives us insight that God somehow desires, in a God-like fashion, to have fellowship with 'kind of his kind'. God further portrays this cosmic relationship through the creation of Eve. He puts Adam in a deep sleep, opens his side and takes out a rib and creates Eve. She is flesh of Adams flesh and bone of his bone.

Next we have Adam and Eve sinning and violating that relationship. This is considered the fall of man. God at that point could have wiped the slate clean and started over but I think it's significant that he chose to instead provide a way for the relationship to be restored.

This 'way' culminated in the crucifixion of Christ. 'This is eternal life - to know God and his son whome he sent' Jesus was put upon a cross and when he died (fell into a deep sleep) his ide was pierced and where a rib was taken from Adam blood and water issued forth from Jesus. This is significant. The blood represents sanctification (there is no remission of sins except for the shedding of blood) and the water represents the Holy Spirit through whom we are sealed in God.

Essentially it comes down to this. God created mankind in his image because God desired to have fellowship with kind of his kind. He already had the angels. Why not 'fellowship' with them. Well - they aren't kind of his kind - they are a step lower (in the grand scheme of things) than humanity. Man offended God and God, had every right to wipe us out. Instead he provided a way to restore humanity to himself and he left the choice up to each individual to accept or reject that way.

As for worshiping God - yes, I believe we were created to worship God. But like I said in the beginning it all depends upon how you define 'worship'. I did a word study on the word 'worship' in the Old and New Testaments some years back. To keep this short - in the OT worship was portrayed as a very religious and symbolix event. In the New Testament there are several words that we translate into worship and they have very personal meaning. One describes that of a lover gazing upon the face of the object of its affection. Another means to 'kiss towards'. Another means 'minister to'. And another means to bow down before. I'd have to look up more but to go back to your question.

The will of God is that our relationship be restored with him and that, yes, we worship him.
 
R

Roscoe

Guest
1) Other Dieties, were they too real? Did they get wipped out by the Catholic take over? What's Allah doing? Is Buddah getting high or something? How come there are no other omnipotent beings?

Well, we God, the one true God. And then we have these 'posers'. They aren't really Gods they are simply a perversion of the truht.

2) If God is the only one, then why the freaken-a did he make us? Was he THAT bored with the universe?

See my post to MMII about this very thing. He made us to have fellowship with 'kind of his kind'.

3) Where are the Angels? You know, the ones that smite sinners with their blades of fire or what have you.

They're there. So are the demons that one guy was talking about a few months ago on this forum.

4) Where's that big hand? Why didn't it stop those planes from crashing into the Twin Towers?

Free will - he could run us all like marbles in a rut or he can let us choose our own paths. Sometimes our choices are wrong ones and sometimes they are horribly wrong ones. Utlimately it comes down to the condition of 'Sin' (capital S is important here).

Why didn't it crush Rosie O'Donnell's annoying head?

I would make a joke but in light of the seriousness of this thread I'll just suggest that you ask him the next time you see him. Although at that point I don't think the question will be so important to you. I know it won't be to me.
 
G

Guest

Guest
***First - we have the existence of man. Man is a personal being in that he can communicate and socialize and ask the question 'why am I here'. There is no other creature that does this. Yes, there is social order among various creatures but to date I do not know of any that stand around wondering 'why'. This personal nature came from somewhere - can the personal come from the impersonal? If not then it means that the personal nature of who we are is not a byproduct of evolution but is instead a direct result of being fashioned after its make which is also personal. That's argument number one for the existence of God.***

I didnt ask for an argument, and I didnt ask for you to make statements such as "There is no other creature that does this" where again you have absolutely no proof to substantiate such a claim. Many animals across the globe show more than an intuitive congnitive function, many of them showing highly adapted reasoning capabilites. To simply state " they dont ask why" because we havent learned to observe their cognitive capability, is as gross a generalization as "God Says so"
What I did ask for is Proof, and in your first statement, there is not a shred of anything that is not more easily explained by our good friend Mr Darwin.


***Second - have you ever read a record of history? An ancient manuscript that clues us in to the past? Or maybe you've read some classic work that communicates some fantastic notion about humanity but it was written centuries ago. The point is that being personal as we are it is in our nature and by deduction, if there is a God and we are created in His image, then communication is in his nature too. ***

I dont even get what your trying to say here... but yes I have read history, andn no where in any of the histories that I have read, has anyone brought forth proof of god.


***Therefore it's not out of the realm of possibility to believe in times past that God spoke to men and they recorded what they heard***

I dont doubt that you belive it.. I think your cracked if you do, but I dont doubt it. Please stop equating "believing in something" and "Proving it"


***But I've not offered proof as of yet. As for the proof - I point to all of creation. You may argue that creation can be explained through the 'big bang' theory and through evolution but that brings us back to the problem of man and his personal nature. Not to mention the problem of morality as well as the problem of knowledge. ***

Again... no Proof. You have no evidence to back up that God put man on Earth, therefore you cant use the fact that Man is on Earth as Proof of God.
It just doesnt work that way.


***If you do not accept nature as evidence then all that remains is to perceive God. And to do that requires the utilization of a spiritual 6th sense called faith. If you define faith as a 'blind acceptance' devoid of any evidence then you'll struggle here. If you define 'faith' as the seeing eye of religion then you'll fare much better. ***

Believing in something, I dont care how strongly you believe, doesnt necesarily make it so, and "Faith" is just a colorful way of saying belive.
 
R

Roscoe

Guest
You're reacting and being hostile. Calm down.

All I offered you was a logical (or my attempt at one) thought process and told you quite clearly that my first two paragraphs were not proof. Second - let me know the next time you get in a philosophical debate with a whale, dolphin, monkey or pig.

As for proof - let me try this - what parameters would you put forward as a condition for proof?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Okay. I liked that. But here are my questions.

First, anyone who studies the Bible knows that we were created in "His image." The question is, how do we take that? Does it refer to corporeal form? Having a free will? Possessing desire and drive to become more than we are? There are too many ways to take it, which is why I distrust the Bible. Vaguery is not the way to inspire devotion.

Is it moral for a supreme being to create other sentient beings with the sole purpose of following their teachings and worshipping it, to the point that you are greatly rewarded or greatly punished depending on your choice?

Could you have a strong, meaningful relationship with a one year old child. Not a son or daughter, but as a semi-equal? This is a very crude example of what the relationship between God and humans must be like. We actually put people in jail who "fall in love" with a small child.

And I accept what you say about worship, but this goes back to the overall vagueness of the Bible.

As far as I know, "trying" to be a Christian isn't enough. Trying to live a moral life isn't enough.

The reason we have so many different denominations within the Christain faith is because so many theologians disagree to some extent, and often completely, on what the Bible means.

How can we, the layman, trust this book if even the pundits can't decide the truth? You're argument about the multiple meanings of worship supports this.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I am by no means being hostile, as for reacting... yes I am.

My orriginal statement was wanting proof that God told man what to write in the bible.

I followed that statement with:
"Virtually every religion can be traced back to a point at which someone, somewhere claimed ... " God " told me... yada yada yada. And never is there a shred of evidence that anything of the sort happened."

What proof do I want.

I want Proof that God spoke to him, without using his writings as proof.

Just because I write down that what I say is right, doesnt mean that I can say Im right because my own book says so. It doesnt work that way.
 
R

Roscoe

Guest
Okay. I liked that. But here are my questions.

First, anyone who studies the Bible knows that we were created in "His image." The question is, how do we take that? Does it refer to corporeal form? Having a free will? Possessing desire and drive to become more than we are? There are too many ways to take it, which is why I distrust the Bible. Vaguery is not the way to inspire devotion.

Well - first, from the Bible we know that 'God is spirit and those that worship him must worship him in spirit...'. I don't believe that God is corporeal and I think you're over thinking on that point. Simply put being created in his image is best defined as a spiritual image.

Is it moral for a supreme being to create other sentient beings with the sole purpose of following their teachings and worshipping it, to the point that you are greatly rewarded or greatly punished depending on your choice?

It's a foreign thought in this day and age of individual rights but submission and accountability to authority is not a bad thing and doesn't make one an autonomaton. In the garden Adam and Eve were given free run of everything before they sinned. And even after they sinned they had free reign up until they were cast out of the garden.

Could you have a strong, meaningful relationship with a one year old child. Not a son or daughter, but as a semi-equal? This is a very crude example of what the relationship between God and humans must be like. We actually put people in jail who "fall in love" with a small child.

You put to great a disparity between God and humanity. Being created in his image is no small thing. It is indicative of the nobility of who we are.

And I accept what you say about worship, but this goes back to the overall vagueness of the Bible.

You're ascribing far more importance to the Bible than even I am. The Bible is a means to an end - it is no the end itself.

As far as I know, "trying" to be a Christian isn't enough. Trying to live a moral life isn't enough.

It's not but that's a huge discussion.

The reason we have so many different denominations within the Christain faith is because so many theologians disagree to some extent, and often completely, on what the Bible means.

Yup - it's bothersome to me too.. well, it used to be. Anymore I've found that it's what we share in common that allows me to attend most any church. The traditions and what not are all inconsequential and is nothing new. It's our propensity to institutionalize things that has caused more problems for us as humans since the time of Noah.

How can we, the layman, trust this book if even the pundits can't decide the truth? You're argument about the multiple meanings of worship supports this.

I don't trust the book. Trite answer I know but it seems really appropriate.
 
R

Roscoe

Guest
I want Proof that God spoke to him, without using his writings as proof.

Would you not then agree that in order to prove that we need to discuss the existence of God? How can I prove to you that God spoke in the past if you don't believe he ever existed?
 
G

Guest

Guest
You cant, And thats what Im am trying to get you to say. There is nothing that can prove that god spoke to the writer of the bible. People took his word for it, and it stuck. Thats it.
 
G

Guest

Guest
<font color=blue>It seems to me that damn near any religion, philosophy or idealogy can and has been used to justify the hierarchy-du-jour.

I think that's an important observation.</font color=blue>

To be precise, the credit for that observation should go to Madrak.

What I find important in the observation is the fact that religion, philosophy and ideology alike have been used and have been useful for the hierarchy.

I’d like to go a step further and insinuate that the implicit separation between the hierarchy and the “systems of beliefs” in that statement may be misleading. In order to spread and become “mainstream” and to maintain itself, these systems of belief need the power associated with the hierarchy at least as much (if not more) as the latter need the former to justify its existence. I’d say that there is always a rational explanation as to why and how a system of beliefs, including religion, comes about and establishes itself; apart from the outlandish and irrational reasons such as right divine being conveying the right book at the right time, invariably – in order to do nothing less than save the humankind.

<font color=blue>Being created in the image of God and in a fallen state it does not surprise me that, people being people, we have seen your observation proven out time and again. It's one of the unavoidable issues of having humanity involved in anything be it religion or secular government.</font color=blue>

*grins* Yes, yes -- exactly the argument used to establish and maintain hierarchy –- a human being is a depraved fallen creature, born in sin, and the salvation is only by and thru the mercy of God.

Of course, less the now archaic and laughable “rationalization” of assuming the role or the control of hierarchy -- because of his low and wicked nature, a human has to be guided (ruled) by those knowing the path to salvation, the God's chosen church...
 
R

Roscoe

Guest
apart from the outlandish and irrational reasons such as right divine being conveying the right book at the right time, invariably – in order to do nothing less than save the humankind.

I agree - that's irrational and outlandish and has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity. I can't speak for any other religions.

Of course, less the now archaic and laughable “rationalization” of assuming the role or the control of hierarchy -- because of his low and wicked nature, a human has to be guided (ruled) by those knowing the path to salvation, the God's chosen church...

spoken like a true anarchist. (don't know if you are one) heaven forbid there be a hierarchy in life. You know - leaders and followers and stuff. The wise teaching the young... you know - all that mentoring stuff.
 
R

Roscoe

Guest
So then back to my question - what would you accept as viable evidence. I gotcha that the Bible's out. Would deductive reasoning based on a logical examination of various points of reality be acceptable?
 
G

Guest

Guest
<font color=blue>apart from the outlandish and irrational reasons such as right divine being conveying the right book at the right time, invariably – in order to do nothing less than save the humankind.

I agree - that's irrational and outlandish and has nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity. I can't speak for any other religions.</font color=blue>

How so? That is pretty much the essence of at least two of the monotheist religions craving to have the temple on the same infamous mountain, including the Christianity; both before and after it was forced to start reinventing itself.

<font color=blue>spoken like a true anarchist. (don't know if you are one) heaven forbid there be a hierarchy in life. You know - leaders and followers and stuff. The wise teaching the young... you know - all that mentoring stuff.</font color=blue>

Spoken like a woolly mammal ready to accept just about any hierarchy, despite having lived in the land for freedom and democracy whole (or most of the) life /php-bin/shared/images/icons/tongue.gif.

Just because Mr. President makes presupposing and unsubstantiated assertions about freedom being a gift from a phantom, doesn't mean that both the hierarchy and the church preached that all along.
 
B

Baker|NV

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

I feel the need to reply to you, too. What you said is exactly the problem of our finiteness trying to comprehend the infinite and eternal. God is simply good, period. See, we tend to view goodness as simply a value judgment dependant on acts / consequences. But if this is all goodness means, then that would make God less than perfect, for God will have to depend on goodness.

<hr></blockquote>
/php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif It seems that you're adopting the "it is good because it is loved by God" model as opposed to "God loves it because it is good" model, although you seem to be waffling a bit. In this case, good is arbitratily defined by God because he is omnipotent, but it's logically consistent at least.
<blockquote><hr>

You are operating from a modernistic scientific level that believes, "Either...or...not both." Yet in our postmodern world, studies in Quantum Physics show that molecules can be two things at one time. Therefore, the either/or model of logic is being constantly questioned and slowly disproven by scientists and philosophers alike. A thing can be two things at one time.

<hr></blockquote>
Quantum physics don't show that molecules can be two things at the same time /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif, that's a tremendous oversimplification. Quantum physics generally indicates that a probabilistic interpretation of physics is actually a fundamental interpretation. So in a way, yes, a particle (generally smaller than a molecule) behaves as based on probabilities of many different paths or states it may be in. It's not really, two things at the same time, it's more a smear of probability that behaves as a wave.

Quantum physics, however, doesn't really related to logical/philosophical arguments. Mutually exclusive ideas are still mutually exclusive.
<blockquote><hr>

Therefore, God can both be good and determine what is good. God is good by virtue of just Being - but also determines what is good because by virtue of God Being good, anything that God creates must, by definition, be good as well. But humanity has not chosen this goodness - and seeks pride and self-sufficiency unless they accept the goodness of Divine Love in their lives.

<hr></blockquote>
Now you're moving back to having your cake and eating it to. Either God is good, as defined by some external standard or God defines good and goodness is merely an arbitrary set of values determined by God.
 
D

DumpsterDan

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

<hr></blockquote> I suggest eBay and start the bidding at $50.00 if she has good teeth.
 
D

DumpsterDan

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

There's no question that the behavior of the sodomites was that of rudeness but to exclude the sin of homosexuality from the behavior of the sodomites belies a personal social agenda as opposed to objective interpretation. Didn't you say you were at a methodist seminary?

<hr></blockquote>
Figures.
 
W

Wisty

Guest
&gt;As I've said, I can accept the Bible for a guideline. But it's too flawed to accept as the word of God.

Then if that is your decision, so be it. Why argue the point(s)? You believe the bible is too flawed. Fine. I accept that. Allow others to believe otherwise. Meanwhile, I've stated before that I have problems with parts of the bible. Which is why I'm studying it, and doing it from many angles. But the bible itself is not the main or only reason I believe in God and believe Jesus existed and believe all the things I've posted. It's something I have trouble putting into words so that the skeptics, disbelievers, and or those who've never experienced what I have, can understand more than just the surface of the words. I try. I take time, now and then, to tell my stories and my experiences and my feelings. But they always get thwacked by the skeptics, disbelievers, those who have never experienced, and or those who are staunch bible thumpers. So I come back to, again, it's a personal search. That begins inside you (each and every person). You can search or you can forget it. You can forget it forever, or put it on hold. You can believe and still question. You can believe and still not fully understand it all. It's your choice. Though if you're looking for someone to rekindle your faith and reteach you to believe in the bible, I'm not the one. There are those far better educated in this than I. So don't pick on me when I cannot proffer what you think I should or what you need.
 
W

Wisty

Guest
&gt;9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...

Which I bet, everyone in this thread over the age of 18 has flunked, and maybe more than once, me included! But I have asked forgiveness, and am trying to do better even though I am still of the unChristian frame of mind that believes one does not have to be "married" in order to be involved with someone, live with someone, and have sex with someone -- except that in my case, as I've posted before, I don't do recreational or casual sex -- my relationship would be like a married one but without the actual legal document. Perhaps I would not be sinning since in my heart I would be committed and moral as a wife, but just not "documented" in the eyes of Christian society/government, and thus sinning. I'm also open-minded about other things, which is why I say I do not make a very good Christian in the biblical sense; though in the sense of the condition of one's heart and motives, I'm probably very Christian/biblical. Still debating with myself about those things.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Oh, but just follow that chick dude, then you can sin all you want, all you have to do is turn to Jesus before you die and everything will be ok, it doesn't matter if you're molested an entire Kindergarden.
 
R

Roscoe

Guest
is there any kind of thread you won't troll? even 'religious' threads are fair game to you eh?
 
G

Guest

Guest
How exactly is that NOT on topic?, Jack Chick is a fine example of religious nutcases.

The only one posting off topic of the thread is you, who don't have any reason to the post other than to take a swipe at me, and you're an ex-admin...LOL
 
R

Roscoe

Guest
I have read every Chick comic there is. When I was a kid they fascinated me. I still see them every so often in churches that I visit.
 
R

Roscoe

Guest
Interesting how so many professing Christians denounce D&amp;D as Satanic and then play UO full of witchcraft necromancy spells deamons pentagrams etc.

I used to play Might and Magic and a very close friend of mine chastised me to no end. He grabbed teh spell book that came with it and swore up and down you could cast spells on people with it.
 
W

Wisty

Guest
&gt;all you have to do is turn to Jesus before you die and everything will be ok, it doesn't matter if you're molested an entire Kindergarden.

I never said that. People who murder and **** deserve the death penalty. I'm not as forgiving as some. I don't believe that we can do all kinds of harm and damage to others in this life and expect to die and be totally forgiven and life a happy life afterwards. But it's not for me to judge what happens to those after they die. I can only go by the laws of this life.
 
R

Roscoe

Guest
I cannot say that I know for certain that anyone went to hell when they died. I simply do not know what eternity holds for any individual. Can a death row inmate be redeemed even though they were sent to death row for murdering the spouse and 4 kids or for murder 12 people over a number of years? Yes, I believe they can. Son of Sam.
 
W

Wisty

Guest
&gt;Interesting how so many professing Christians denounce D&amp;D as Satanic and then play UO full of witchcraft necromancy spells deamons pentagrams etc.

Yes, I've heard of that. My JW friends were very leery of D&amp;D. I never played it, but did have a board game for little kids which was somehow related to D&amp;D with kobolts and trolls, etc. My JW friends cautioned me, but I didn't find anything bad about the game.

As for UO, a person can play any part they want, they don't have to participate in anything so-called satanic/evil. And there is so-called satanic/evil and witches/benign or otherwise in real life, too, but Christians still go about living their lives in the world.

There was also a thing about black being demonic. But black is just another color created by God (or for the evolutionists, arrived along with the Big Bang).

It's what you do WITH things that really determines their purpose, goodness or badness.

This has nothing to do with Christianity, but one thing that bothered me about UO was peeps training to be thieves and or it being an honorable profession. Because I just don't like thievery and stealing is not part of my personality, AND quite a bit of that has gone on in my real life here. ( stealing from me or swapping older similar items for my newer ones.) Also, killing animals every which-a-way, even pets, seemed to be kind of teaching people how to be insensitive in general. And destroying other peeps, on down to making them so miserable they have no fun playing anymore, even when they do not consent to it, even when it's not supposed to be part of the game and yet peep find ways to do it to others. All that stuff went against my grain and my preferences; hence, more reasons why I quit UO. I'm really more a PvM. Or games that teach compassion and morals. Or, at the very least, pit good guys against the bad/evil turdoes.
 
G

Guest

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

But black is just another color

<hr></blockquote>

Black is not a color. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/tongue.gif
 
M

Mother Zub

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

d) He was not laying down a universal truth but was working to restore peace and unity to a specific group of believers in context of their social framwork.

<hr></blockquote>

Sweethart, I hate to tell you, but that is the SAME thing as answer "B"

also...
It doesnt say "women be silent in this church"
it says "let the women be silent in the churches"

Who has the right to say that One verse is ment for all and IS universal truth, and others are directed at specific people?
Particularly in this case where the language suggests that it is NOT ment to be only directed at one church.


Why does social framework make a difference to god?
Is there no REAL right and wrong?
How is the bible of any use if it does not contain universal truth (or if we are free to pick and choose about what is and what is not ment for us?)

The obvious argument (I would think) would be to say that the universal laws are the 10 commandments and the universal command is belief in God and jesus as his risen son. The rest is just "FYI"?

That is good, but why then do christians believe that the bible is penned by God through man?? Would god not be aware of the future compilation of the bible and would the word of god not be universal truth?
If it is specific advice to one church (though evidence shows that that is NOT the intended case) then does not the rest of the books of paul fall under the same "throw away" category as they are all, in reality, written to specific churches?
If so much of the bible is not ment for us... and even contains MISLEADING information such as these verses, how can you say that the compilation is guided by god?

The verse before the "silence in the churches" verse says that god is not the author of confusion
Obviously this is ANOTHER verse that is not ment for us since if god is the author of the bible he is indeed the author of confusion.


even the 10 commandments have women listed as "property" of the husband: (paraphrase from memory) Thou shalt not covet they neighbors wife, nor his ox nor his as or anything that is thy neighbor's (emphasis origional to king james if I remeber correctly.)


How could god, who knows the past present and future be so careless when "dictating" the books of the bible which are supposed to be ment for ALL people, not just the people of one specific era.


<blockquote><hr>

However it's the PC notions of what 'liberation' truly means for women that have distorted Paul's writings to say something they didn't then and don't now. 'Insulting' indeed.

<hr></blockquote>

HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT???

I didnt distort anything... those are the very words of the book.
To me their meaning is obvious. What other possible interpretation is there... pray tell?

you are calling being free to speak a "PC notion of liberation?" Teaching men or having a position of athority go to a female is a "PC notion of liberation??"


It is either No longer true or it is horridly sexist. There are no 2 ways about it.

It seems that you have chosen to rephrase "option b"
I had no Idea that the Bible was not universal truth! I have never heard a christian say that the letters of paul are not ment for us and that their contents are no longer true!! I was taught that the bible is true in the past, it's true in the present and it will be true in the future.

Now you are telling me that because I took the bible as true I have distorted its meaning?
God forbid I should give any credit to the word of God.


I assure you that in the future I will no longer "distort" the bible by assuming that it contains true words.
If I feel that something is wrong I will sleep soundly knowing that most of it is no longer true.
 
B

Baker|NV

Guest
MoZub pwns! /php-bin/shared/images/icons/biglaugh2.gif

Roscoe:
Perhaps I should ask you what I've asked Gannon. Is "good" something external to God or is it defined by God? You seem reluctant to accept that your God is sexist, despite the undeniable sexism in the Bible, which is supposedly the word of God. So tell me, what is it tugging at your conscience that tells you sexism is wrong and should not be ascribed to the Bible? What is that moral sense, apparently seperate from the Bible, which drives you to separate your theology from sexism? If "good" is defined by God, wouldn't it make sense to simply say women should not speak in church and that's just the way it is?
 
V

Vio

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

black ( P ) Pronunciation Key (blk)
adj. black·er, black·est
Being of the color black, producing or reflecting comparatively little light and having no predominant hue.

<hr></blockquote>
/php-bin/shared/images/icons/tongue.gif
 
D

DumpsterDan

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

It's what you do WITH things that really determines their purpose, goodness or badness.

<hr></blockquote>

Awww I see. So I could open a Christian brothel and use the money to feed the poor?
 
D

Devin MacGregor

Guest
<blockquote><hr>


Okay. The Bible SUCKS!


<hr></blockquote>

Ok this is a blatant lie. I spilt some water on the kitchen floor so I threw a Bible on it and it didnt suck anything. The puddle just stayed there.

You get two claps though for trolling so many.

Oh once a walkin' on the green enjoyin' Ireland sun
Me Gran'ther came across something he thought was mighty odd
At first he thought it was a bird because it was so small
Turned out to be a Leprechaun a standing two feet tall

Turned out to be a Leprechaun a standing two feet tall

Me Gran'ther was a crafty man and reached and grabbed it quick
Say give to me your pot of gold and mind you try no tricks
The Leprechaun he said instead I'll give you wishes three
But first I'll have to tell the rules so listen carefully

But first he has to tell the rules so listen carefully

The first rule is you cannot wish for more than wishes three
You cannot wish for anything stretched to infinity
You cannot wish the English out before the end of War
And one of the things whatever you wish your Mother-in-Law gets more

And one of the things whatever you wish your Mother-in-Law gets more

So if you want a brand new house your Mother-in-Law gets two
You can wish yourself a wealthy man but she'll have more than you
Oh you can wish for anything t'would surely be so nice
but whatever it is your wishin' for the old bag gets it twice

but whatever it is your wishin' for the old bag gets it twice

Me Gran'ther he thought long and hard considered carefully
And when he spoke his eyes lit up with some eternal glee
Me first is wealth me second is fame and then he took a breath
And for my third and final wiiiiiiiiiiiiish

Please beat me half to death
 
D

Devin MacGregor

Guest
Yes but dictionary.com is confusing...

<blockquote><hr>


color

\Col"or\, n. [Written also colour.] [OF. color, colur, colour, F. couleur, L. color; prob. akin to celare to conceal (the color taken as that which covers). See Helmet.] 1. A property depending on the relations of light to the eye, by which individual and specific differences in the hues and tints of objects are apprehended in vision; as, gay colors; sad colors, etc.

Note: The sensation of color depends upon a peculiar function of the retina or optic nerve, in consequence of which rays of light produce different effects according to the length of their waves or undulations, waves of a certain length producing the sensation of red, shorter waves green, and those still shorter blue, etc. White, or ordinary, light consists of waves of various lengths so blended as to produce no effect of color, and the color of objects depends upon their power to absorb or reflect a greater or less proportion of the rays which fall upon them.

2. Any hue distinguished from white or black.


<hr></blockquote>

We have three primary colors(red, blue, and yellow) which produce our secondary colors(purple, green, and orange) and so on and so on. White and Black lighten or darken respectively the hues of colors. But what else are people going to call them? Shades? Some still say oh my printer prints in black and white. *blinks*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top