NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe we've had a trillion debates on how prior knowledge does not equate to predestination.
It does when you are the omnipotent all creator.

It does when you are the omnipotent all creator.


No it does not, that would eliminate personal responsibility. The choice is still ours, because we do not know what choice we will make.

No it does not, that would eliminate personal responsibility. The choice is still ours, because we do not know what choice we will make.
It may eliminate personal responsibility but that is merely what faith in an omniscient, omnipotent, all creator figure means. Everything that happened is destiny. Every chocie we make we made because god created the universe in which we made it instead of another one.

You're not much of a Christian its "Love they neighbor as theyself and love God above all things". But nothing about him loving you back.


Read the New Testament, I'm not posting several hundred pages of scriptures -.-

Exactly


It may eliminate personal responsibility but that is merely what faith in an omniscient, omnipotent, all creator figure means. Everything that happened is destiny. Every chocie we make we made because god created the universe in which we made it instead of another one.

How ?

Preventing the birth of those who would not accept His will would conflict with free will.

So you're a cafeteria Christian pick and choose the parts you like and drop the rest? Christ never said to stop being Jews.

Being Jewish was never what God intended from the beginning. Abraham was considered righteous, not because he was Jewish, but because of his faith. He wasnt a Jew anyway. It's all explained in the book of Romans. Keeping the Jewish law never saved anybody. Rather it is faith in God. The purpose of the law was to bring us to the conclusion that no body was perfect, that we can't make the grade that way. It was to point us back to faith being the only way to please God. Thus, this is the value of the law. We modern Christians don't discard the law. We don't just pick from it the pieces we like and leave the rest. We understand what it was for, and enter wholeheartedly into a relationship with God based on faith.

It may eliminate personal responsibility but that is merely what faith in an omniscient, omnipotent, all creator figure means. Everything that happened is destiny. Every chocie we make we made because god created the universe in which we made it instead of another one.

God knowing what we will choose to do is not the same as God forcing us to choose what we do. As Stephen Hawking said when asked about predestination

"Are we predestined? Yes. But since we dont know about it, we may as well not be"

I've even got a minster so mad he swung on me in his church. Just by asking about the bible.:D

i wouldn't be too proud of that. Sounds like you are actually happy to have upset someone that much. What does that say about you?

What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.

God is the author and the critic in the Christain mythos, if fully rooted in the Bible humanity are just the hapless victims. God is you when you play the Sims you put the fireworks in the house and act surprised when they set a fire.

Or an unwillingness to crush our will, rather than a failure to communicate. To put it another way, what do you think is the main reason why you are not a Christian? I doubt you can say that you haven't heard the message of the good news of the gospel. Rather, you are more likely to claim that it is false. But here on this forum are plenty of people who claim that it is true. Therefore, in order to support your claim, you have to say that we are supporting something that is false, that we are either deceptive or mislead. However, there are at least three options. That we are right is the third one. If you cannot prove that we are false, then you have only your opinion and the opinion of others to go by, not proof. If you want to prove Christianity false, you have to try it first. That means giving your heart to Jesus. If not, that puts you in the same position as poor old Joe, who heard the messages but refused to listen.

You don't need to believe in it to go there...

No - but it DOES have to be real.

And so far, no reason to believe it... and the bulk of the evidence says it's not.

Atheists have a bit of a problem here. Predeterminism is far to complex a concept to strike real doubt into a Christian. Personally, it all comes down to the fact that I love God and God loves me, and no amount of theological nonsense can convince me otherwise.

Atheists have a bit of a problem here. Predeterminism is far to complex a concept to strike real doubt into a Christian. Personally, it all comes down to the fact that I love God and God loves me, and no amount of theological nonsense can convince me otherwise.
That might be so but some more of that “theological nonsense” is necessary for some of us being without faith.
“I love God and God loves me” is perfectly fine for you but how is that supposed to help us? As such us silly atheist need a bit more empirical proof of things such as they were to convince us to waste our lives on believing what very potentially could be a pack of lies/misunderstandings

This was the point of the thread there is no way to reconcile evil with the "Christian" God.

Unless you've read the Bible.

Examples:

Joshua 23:15 "...so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things..."

Judges 9:23 "...Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem..."

First Samuel 16:15 "And Saul's servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee".

First Samuel 16:16 "...when the evil spirit from God is upon thee..."

First Samuel 16:23 "And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul..."

First Samuel 18:10 "And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul..."

First Kings 9:9 "...therefore hath the LORD brought upon them all this EVIL".

Second Kings 21:12 "Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears shall tingle..."

So do you or don't you follow the laws of the OT?

Being Jewish was never what God intended from the beginning. Abraham was considered righteous, not because he was Jewish, but because of his faith. He wasnt a Jew anyway. It's all explained in the book of Romans. Keeping the Jewish law never saved anybody. Rather it is faith in God. The purpose of the law was to bring us to the conclusion that no body was perfect, that we can't make the grade that way. It was to point us back to faith being the only way to please God. Thus, this is the value of the law. We modern Christians don't discard the law. We don't just pick from it the pieces we like and leave the rest. We understand what it was for, and enter wholeheartedly into a relationship with God based on faith.

Christian explanation: God did all that stuff for a reason, so things would turn out better in the end. [Me: Either that or he's a sadistic egomaniac. :p] Therefore, the crucifixion was good because it brought us redemption; hell was good because it created consequences for "not behaving" IRL, etc. etc. etc.

My explanation: I'd go farther.

The first chapter of the Gospel of John sums up the rest (read it).
Jesus existed from the beginning, and thus God had planned for His redeeming son to save his creation. Though to non-believers this is a load of crap, so i don't care what anyone says.

PS. Read Milton's Paradise Lost

That I want people to question and not blindly follow like sheep to the slaughter and if a "man of God" couldn't follow the tenants of his own religion that he was a "professional" of perhaps it's a false belief.


i wouldn't be too proud of that. Sounds like you are actually happy to have upset someone that much. What does that say about you?

In the second case, he warns that they will be persecuted. He tells them to get prepared (ie get a sword), even if it means changing your whole livestyle (sell something as personal as your cloak). I'm no Bible scholar, neither do I understand that much about Jewish culture. Yet the warning in the words of Jesus is rather clear. And when he says to get a sword, it means that troubled times are ahead. He was right.

So how do you square this with his advice to "turn the other cheek"?

To blame the destruction of the natives on the Bible makes about as much sense as blaming Einstein for the destruction of the Japanese cities.

But to the best of my knowledge, Einstein never advocated destruction of other nations or cultures. The bible did, and Christians seem to have no problem with it, as evidenced by the following remark from you:

The destruction of the Canaanites was an example of where God (according to the scriptures) gave clear warning to them to change their ways. Upon their refusal, God gave clear instructions to the Israelites to attack them. I find it all a bit bloody, to be honest, and no doubt the Canaanites, Israelites, and God also found it so. But to say that God commanded the war once back then, and thus He smiles upon it when we do so today--that is clearly not reasonable.

You are certainly free to make such a decision. But on the basis of the example of Lot? Come off it. You are not being reasonable. Lot was obviously a man of his time. He obviously didn't want to allow such a thing to happen to his daughters. Otherwise they would not have remained virgins up until such a time. For him to turn over the 'lords' to the wicked men of the city was worse than turning over his daughters. I have no trouble accepting that this was the right thing to do, in such a culture, where your guest was more important than anyone else in your entire household, particularly the women who were considered of lesser value. Notice that the Bible never condemns or justifies Lot's decision. Actually, it tends to blame Lot for having gotten himself in such a predicament. As for the later incident, with his daughters, I suppose Lot's fault was that he was so miserable about losing his wife and almost everyone else in his life that he indulged in too much wine. The girls did the rest. I can't bring myself to condemn him in this case.

It's just like the bible to blame it on us worthless women (or, in the case of Lot's daughters, young girls) - and it's just like Christians to go along with that. First off, the girls were still virgins - before Lot got a hold of them in the cave, that is. In those days, girls were married off at least by the time they were about 16 or so - if not much younger - right? Secondly, Lot was supposed to be so drunk he couldn't even perceive when they laid down or got up - right? And yet, magically, he was able to rise to the occasion, so to speak. Am I the only one here who sees a problem with this story?

And by the way - I'm not rejecting the entire bible simply on the basis of the Lot story. As I said - it was just one example of where the bible calls evil "good".

As for why the Bible describes Lot as righteous is not because he was better in morals than the next person, but that he believed in and knew the God of Abraham. I believe that that belief is what kept him from completely adopting the ways of the people of Sodom.

Is that really all it takes to be considered "righteous"?

As a Pagan, what do you believe in? The old Pagans were a mixed bunch. They seemed to believe in the gods or spirits, and they varied from people to people.

And the new Pagans are still a mixed bunch. :) Generally, Pagan religions are nature-based, and they honor both a male and female deity (though some Pagans do focus solely on a Goddess). Personally, my belief is that the Divine is equally "male" and "female" (which is not to say that I believe the Divine is made up of a man and a woman, by the way), and that it is balanced in all other respects as well. I believe the Divine is immanent in nature, and so nature is the only holy book I will ever need to understand it. No intermediary is required to help me communicate with the Divine - I have direct access, as does everyone else. I don't have time this morning to go into it further than that, but if you have specific questions, please let me know and I'll do my best to answer.

As for the Bible, I have found in it truths that, by changing my life accordingly have produced wonderful results. I have found that it pointed me the way to Christ, and I will always be grateful to God that He gave me a Bible. How is it possible that you and I could come to such different conclusions over the same book?

We each see it from a different angle, I suppose. I was not pre-programmed to see it the way a Christian would, but was free to explore it without any particular bias. I have noticed that I see many things that Christians seem to be completely blind to - no offense intended - I'm sure they see things that I'm completely blind to as well. Speaking of things Christians are blind to, have you by any chance noticed all the references to Jesus being a serpent? I personally find that very interesting.

Furthermore, Jesus taught that the way to overcome evil was with love, i.e., to love your enemy, pray for them, and take opportunities to do good to them. Which part of that teaching do you find horrible?

That isn't the part I find horrible - if that is all he taught, I'd have no problem with him or his teachings at all. I do have a problem with "love your enemies but hate and abandon your family", as I've mentioned before.

That I want people to question and not blindly follow like sheep to the slaughter and if a "man of God" couldn't follow the tenants of his own religion that he was a "professtional" of perhaps it's a false belief.

Not to offend (btw)

Atheists blindly believe there is no god also. There is no way to prove or disprove god. Atheists only give the exact opposite arguments as believers, so the faults in believers is also the faults in non-believers.

Also, I believe in the vengeful god analytical method of discerning which god to believe. If you care ask for an explanation if you already do not know.

Not to offend (btw)

Atheists blindly believe there is no god also. There is no way to prove or disprove god. Atheists only give the exact opposite arguments as believers, so the faults in believers is also the faults in non-believers.

Also, I believe in the vengeful god analytical method of discerning which god to believe. If you care ask for an explanation if you already do not know.
Depends are you talking implicit or explicit atheism? (explicit also sometimes called the more accurate anti-theism)

My responce in red

Or an unwillingness to crush our will, rather than a failure to communicate. To put it another way, what do you think is the main reason why you are not a Christian? Because it's a load of crap. I doubt you can say that you haven't heard the message of the good news of the gospel. Good new? serve or burn? Rather, you are more likely to claim that it is false.Not claim, no Christian has ever given any EMPIRICAL evidance for Christ. But here on this forum are plenty of people who claim that it is true. and plenty who worship Allah and also plenty who think Communism was a good thing what's your point? Therefore, in order to support your claim, you have to say that we are supporting something that is false, that we are either deceptive or mislead. Yep kinda like Germans in the 30's and 40's or Japanese during the same period. However, there are at least three options. That we are right is the third one. If you cannot prove that we are false, then you have only your opinion and the opinion of others to go by, not proof. If you want to prove Christianity false, you have to try it first. That means giving your heart to Jesus.A diafied street preacher from 2000 years ago? Why not Zeus or Apollo. If not, that puts you in the same position as poor old Joe, who heard the messages but refused to listen.Any religion that desires blind ignorant faith no thanks.

There's the rub I'm not a atheist. I think Christianity is a crock of shit however.

Not to offend (btw)

Atheists blindly believe there is no god also. There is no way to prove or disprove god. Atheists only give the exact opposite arguments as believers, so the faults in believers is also the faults in non-believers.

Also, I believe in the vengeful god analytical method of discerning which god to believe. If you care ask for an explanation if you already do not know.

There's the rub I'm not a atheist. I think Christianity is a crock of shit however.

You missed my point, either way we believe something we cannot prove.

So do you or don't you follow the laws of the OT?

The short answer is no. However, I read them, and study them and try to learn from them. But I don't need to follow them, because I follow Christ.

Christians assume God to omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving correct?

Well then if that was the case why doesn't God simple create people whom have both free will and (by virtue of his omniscience ) will not be Hell bound?

For that matter could he not foreseen and prevent both the fall of Adam and Lucifer?

Doesn't God's absolute foreknowledge make the crucifixion a suicide?

Just asking.

So, I suppose your one of those types that believes we all evolved from dust on a ball of flaming magma that was enevitably produced from a "magical" explosion of a (somehow pre-existing) ball of everything?

Religion is a logical course of action. The reason we have soo many atheists these days is because society (as a whole) has become apathetic and lethargic. No one believes in God, because it is too much work and it is easier to say that you will just rot in the ground, while eating potato chips and watching Survivor.

With that said: Catholicism is the true religion and it teaches us the morals that many people lack in this era of consumption and greed.

[COLOR=Black][COLOR=LemonChiffon][COLOR=DarkOrange]

snip

With that said: Catholicism is the true religion and it teaches us the morals that many people lack in this era of consumption and greed.
LOL that got a good chuckle

The short answer is no. However, I read them, and study them and try to learn from them. But I don't need to follow them, because I follow Christ.
I follow hank

You should to else he will kick your ass

But if you follow him he will give you a million bucks

Its good to follow hank

Christianity isn't based on faulty logic, because it's not based on logic at all, it's based on faith and belief.
Which is why it's impossible to really say anything about religion that can be accepted by religious and non religious people. Religious people by definition do not accept proof is necessary for something to be true, but generally athiests use the lack of proof of a god, as the basis for their non-belief, and expect some kind fo proof and rationalisation for a belief system.

The two camps start from entirely different world views, and without some kind of way to unite the two under a similar rule set, you can't really start to compare them or use one's methods to verify the others.

Do you just jump from one conclustion to another randomly or do you at least make prejudicial guesses first? I said CHRISTIANITY is not logically sound. Did I at any point say there was no God?



[COLOR=Black][COLOR=LemonChiffon][COLOR=DarkOrange]

So, I suppose your one of those types that believes we all evolved from dust on a ball of flaming magma that was enevitably produced from a "magical" explosion of a (somehow pre-existing) ball of everything?

Religion is a logical course of action. The reason we have soo many atheists these days is because society (as a whole) has become apathetic and lethargic. No one believes in God, because it is too much work and it is easier to say that you will just rot in the ground, while eating potato chips and watching Survivor.

With that said: Catholicism is the true religion and it teaches us the morals that many people lack in this era of consumption and greed.

That I want people to question and not blindly follow like sheep to the slaughter and if a "man of God" couldn't follow the tenants of his own religion that he was a "professional" of perhaps it's a false belief.

That is a point that you and I can agree on. Neither do I like to see people blindly following, though I don't see how to change things. It is the nature of people. Of course there are always the exceptions.

The poor behaviour of the preacher could be an indication of a false belief (compared to mainstream Christianity), but only if his belief encouraged or at least condoned his behaviour. It is possible that he was not being consistent with what he believed. In order to find out, you would have to go back to him and ask him if he would do it again, and if he thought he was right to react in such a way.
If he believed that he did the right thing, and would do it again, it would show that his belief was not consistent with what Jesus taught. But you still have a long way to go before you have proven that what Jesus taught was false.

Ok then what was your point?

You missed my point, either way we believe something we cannot prove.

I follow hank

You should to else he will kick your ass

But if you follow him he will give you a million bucks

Its good to follow hank

You have a point there. However, in Jesus we see the Law of the OT fulfilled. he was no new upstart, like hank, but systematically fulfilled the prophecies of the OT (assuming the accuracy of the NT accounts).

[COLOR=Black][COLOR=LemonChiffon][COLOR=DarkOrange]

So, I suppose your one of those types that believes we all evolved from dust on a ball of flaming magma that was enevitably produced from a "magical" explosion of a (somehow pre-existing) ball of everything?

Religion is a logical course of action. The reason we have soo many atheists these days is because society (as a whole) has become apathetic and lethargic. No one believes in God, because it is too much work and it is easier to say that you will just rot in the ground, while eating potato chips and watching Survivor.

With that said: Catholicism is the true religion and it teaches us the morals that many people lack in this era of consumption and greed.

I wouldn't be so skeptical of science theory though. Science and faith doesn't have to lie too far apart. In fact I would argue that it is possible to view each as the same. They're both a search for understanding the world around us. One argues the points we can prove and the other proposes ideas for the points we cannot prove. Believing something which is not,or cannot, be proven doesn't make it any less of a theory which science proposes. For example:
Newton proposes his law of gravity in the 1600s and proves Galileo correct with its implications. Some view it as a major catastrophe to the geocentric views of the Old Testament. However, Newton was uncapable of proving WHY gravity exists, he just said it did and we needed to believe it.

See, sometimes people just have to believe something we don't understand, to take that leap of faith. Some people are just afraid of the unknown and unproven, though will believe science with its own leap of faiths.

Keep up the Faith

You have a point there. However, in Jesus we see the Law of the OT fulfilled. he was no new upstart, like hank, but systematically fulfilled the prophecies of the OT (assuming the accuracy of the NT accounts).
Lol I was more making a silly off hand comment to


This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

John:
"Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary:
"Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me:
"Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"

John:
"If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."

Me:
"What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John:
"Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."

Me:
"That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary:
"Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me:
"Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John:
"Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me:
"Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary:
"Oh yes, all the time..."

Me:
"And has He given you a million dollars?"

John:
"Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me:
"So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary:
"You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."

Me:
"Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John:
"My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me:
"Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John:
"Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me:
"So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary:
"Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me:
"What's that got to do with Hank?"

John:
"Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me:
"I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John:
"But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit of you."

Me:
"Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

Mary:
"No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me:
"Then how do you kiss His ass?"

John:
"Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

Me:
"Who's Karl?"

Mary:
"A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me:
"And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

John:
"Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

** From the desk of Karl **

Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
Use alcohol in moderation.
Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
Eat right.
Hank dictated this list Himself.
The moon is made of green cheese.
Everything Hank says is right.
Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
Don't use alcohol.
Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you.

Me:
"This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary:
"Hank didn't have any paper."

Me:
"I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John:
"Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me:
"I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary:
"Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me:
"I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"

Mary:
"It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me:
"How do you figure that?"

Mary:
"Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me:
"Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John:
"No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me:
"But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John:
"There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me:
"Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Mary:
"But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me:
"I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John:
"Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

Me:
"We do?"

Mary:
"Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

Me:
"You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

John:
"Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me:
"But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary:
She blushes.

John:
"Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

Me:
"What if I don't have a bun?"

John:
"No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me:
"No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary:
She looks positively stricken.

John:
He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

Me:
"So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

Mary:
Sticks her fingers in her ears. "I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

John:
"That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

Me:
"It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary:
She faints.

John:
He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.


:)

The problem is we will never really know what Jesus really taught the Gospels are of questionable origin and new and or different Gospels keep apearing. We we also never learn what was destroyed at the Council of Nicea.
If the Bible is the word of God it should be a little more "bulletproof".



That is a point that you and I can agree on. Neither do I like to see people blindly following, though I don't see how to change things. It is the nature of people. Of course there are always the exceptions.

The poor behaviour of the preacher could be an indication of a false belief (compared to mainstream Christianity), but only if his belief encouraged or at least condoned his behaviour. It is possible that he was not being consistent with what he believed. In order to find out, you would have to go back to him and ask him if he would do it again, and if he thought he was right to react in such a way.
If he believed that he did the right thing, and would do it again, it would show that his belief was not consistent with what Jesus taught. But you still have a long way to go before you have proven that what Jesus taught was false.

That is a HUGE assumption.


You have a point there. However, in Jesus we see the Law of the OT fulfilled. he was no new upstart, like hank, but systematically fulfilled the prophecies of the OT (assuming the accuracy of the NT accounts).

That is a HUGE assumption.

Yes, but again, we need to keep in mind that in the eyes of believers, it's a very easy assumption. Though in reality, it is.

So how do you square this with his advice to "turn the other cheek"?

Yeah, you have definitely hit a soft spot. I guess I would take each situation as it arises. For example, when someone insults me, I would try to let it go, and forgive them, even if they are not asking for forgiveness. But when someone is raping my wife (or my sister, or my daughter--in the event that I get one), I get a bloody big stick, and whack them so hard they will think twice about it again. Not sure what Jesus would do in that situation, but I believe that he would want me to do what I could to help and protect my wife. Like I said before, I'm no pacifist, neither do I like violence.



But to the best of my knowledge, Einstein never advocated destruction of other nations or cultures. The bible did, and Christians seem to have no problem with it, as evidenced by the following remark from you:


From the Biblical accounts, God didn't like the slaughter much either. But he makes it clear that those who persist in following wicked ways (for example the common practice of the Canaanites was to burn their children as sacrifices to the Pagan gods, among other things) were bringing the destruction down on their own heads. Since they ignored the warning, their blood was on their own heads.

Actually most Christians seem to have a lot of problems with this part of Scripture. It is hard to understand (for me anyway), even if I have understood the situation. But that may be because I am a child of Western thought (I shudder to think of those men with blood running down their swords, mercilessly killing women, old people, and little kids). I don't think that destruction of people and cultures is OK. But how do I know how much my own culture influences how I see the situation?

And then to bring some perspective into things, how about those old Pagan cultures who thought it a delightful thing to wipe out any other culture weaker than themselves? You can hardly claim superiority in this situation.


It's just like the bible to blame it on us worthless women (or, in the case of Lot's daughters, young girls) - and it's just like Christians to go along with that. First off, the girls were still virgins - before Lot got a hold of them in the cave, that is. In those days, girls were married off at least by the time they were about 16 or so - if not much younger - right? Secondly, Lot was supposed to be so drunk he couldn't even perceive when they laid down or got up - right? And yet, magically, he was able to rise to the occasion, so to speak. Am I the only one here who sees a problem with this story?

And by the way - I'm not rejecting the entire bible simply on the basis of the Lot story. As I said - it was just one example of where the bible calls evil "good".


I certainly didn't get the impression that the Bible account of Lot was putting any blame on the women. I did get the impression that it was simply telling the story. They (the girls) would have been influenced by the culture of Sodom too, I suppose. Lot probably took that risk when he moved into the city with his family.

Same goes for the whole Bible. It was written during a time when women were considered of lesser value than men. But the teachings that come out of the Bible are that women are to be treated with respect and love (in the same way that Christ gave his life for the church). Jesus certainly honoured a woman with being the first person to see him after his ressurrection.

As for Lot rising on the occasion and speaking, I couldn't find any mention of that in the Genesis account.

The Bible does not call Lot's mistakes good, but that he was considered righteous according to his faith.


Is that really all it takes to be considered "righteous"?


If you mean faith, then yes. Read Hebrews, for example. A life that is lived according to faith. Mind you, that could be radically different from the all-too-common 'modern' definition of faith, where, for example someone believes in Jesus, goes to church, but makes no effort to follow Him. Apparently, Abraham was considered righteous because he believed that God would give him and Sarah a son, as God had promised, even though he was too old (or perhaps Sarah was too old). That was his faith right there. That faith was the basis for his friendship with God.



And the new Pagans are still a mixed bunch. :) Generally, Pagan religions are nature-based, and they honor both a male and female deity (though some Pagans do focus solely on a Goddess). Personally, my belief is that the Divine is equally "male" and "female" (which is not to say that I believe the Divine is made up of a man and a woman, by the way), and that it is balanced in all other respects as well. I believe the Divine is immanent in nature, and so nature is the only holy book I will ever need to understand it. No intermediary is required to help me communicate with the Divine - I have direct access, as does everyone else. I don't have time this morning to go into it further than that, but if you have specific questions, please let me know and I'll do my best to answer.

OK. I do have one question (at least). If nature is supposed to tell us how to live, what are the messages that comes to you from nature. For example, what is nature's equivalent of the ten commandments?

Oh, more questions What is the purpose to life? Why are we here? What happens when we die?

Now that I think about it, I do have a few more, but will leave it so that you don't have to post some huge replies.

I can see why you might be attracted to the Pagan ......religion??, since there involves an equal amount of honour for both the male and the female, perhaps even more for the female, since she is the 'source' of life????



We each see it from a different angle, I suppose. I was not pre-programmed to see it the way a Christian would, but was free to explore it without any particular bias. I have noticed that I see many things that Christians seem to be completely blind to - no offense intended - I'm sure they see things that I'm completely blind to as well. Speaking of things Christians are blind to, have you by any chance noticed all the references to Jesus being a serpent? I personally find that very interesting.

I was 'programmed' as a child, since I was raised by a godly mother (while my dad was off running around with other women). The anger in my life eventually led me to reject my childhood programimg. But when I discovered that my own way was not fun anymore (that in fact it appeared quite empty), I decided to investigate this Jesus thing. I have not been disappointed, and have not even been tempted to look back ever since, though I am still very much on the journey.

Perhaps you may be so kind as to point out some of our blindnesses. I, for one, am willing to learn about them.

As for Jesus being referred to as a serpent---I can't think of any right now. Perhaps you could help me. I am assuming that you are referring to the Bible.



That isn't the part I find horrible - if that is all he taught, I'd have no problem with him or his teachings at all. I do have a problem with "love your enemies but hate and abandon your family", as I've mentioned before.

Ok, yes, that appeared to cause a lot of problems for his listeners way back then too. But I can say that after having done my best to follow what he said, to love God more than my family, so that obedience to him means that I would forsake my family if He called me, has led me to enjoy a much greater love for my family than ever before. Instead of clinging to them, I can love them and enjoy them all the more, with the knowledge that if God ever takes them from me, it is only for the best. So I enjoy them while I have them. I discovered a lot more freedom than ever before. You have to see it in the context of a tremendous level of trust, otherwise it just looks plain stupid.

Lol I was more making a silly off hand comment to



:)

That was funny. I have to admit. And if that is how atheists see Christians, heaven help them, because I don't know if I can.

That was funny. I have to admit. And if that is how atheists see Christians, heaven help them, because I don't know if I can.
Lol sometimes that’s how ya all look to us honestly (not necessarily in the details and not all of you) but in some ways without the faith that’s how a lot of religions look

Man created god not the other way around it is a simple form of control well formed out by its original creators this roots back to the very roots of humanity, of civilization its a simple form of control using fear one simple fear do you know what that is fear of the unkown of what happens after death it prompts them to do the "moral thing" instead of what they want to thus attepting to destroy free will it has also caused much bloodshed and much of the "evil" that the creators seeked to destroy bringing war (crusades) toruture (spanish inquisition) and fantacism (terrorists)

The problem is we will never really know what Jesus really taught the Gospels are of questionable origin and new and or different Gospels keep apearing. We we also never learn what was destroyed at the Council of Nicea.
If the Bible is the word of God it should be a little more "bulletproof".

We may never be able to prove it empirically. However, it certainly can be investigated in the context of taking what He said and applying it to one's life. I can personally vouch for that.

What do you mean, 'bulletproof'?

That is a HUGE assumption.

I wonder if it is as big as the assumption that there is no god. Oh, that's right. you are not an atheist. Well, what about your assumption......well let me just have a guess....that God doesn't love you (assuming that you assume this?????)

Whatever your world view, whatever you believe, you are dreaming if you think there are no assumptions in it.
Someone told you that DNA carries genetic information, and you assumed that they were right. Someone else told you that if you go south far enough you find Australia (yea, my home country) (if you lived in China) and then the south pole. I suppose you assumed them to be right.

Someone else told you that God loves you. You assumed them wrong (once again, this is only an example, and I am assuming that you make this assumption).

We may never be able to prove it empirically. However, it certainly can be investigated in the context of taking what He said and applying it to one's life. I can personally vouch for that.

What do you mean, 'bulletproof'?
By bulletproof god would take a little bit more time making sure both the text was clear and it was not able to be selectively edited like at the Council of Nicea

Because supposedly our whole afterlife supposedly rests on us reading this book and believing what it says about Jesus and that their description is accurate. It is a bit harder to do when the book itself has been edited in un known ways by man

Lol sometimes that’s how ya all look to us honestly (not necessarily in the details and not all of you) but in some ways without the faith that’s how a lot of religions look

And I thought buns was the American word for arse. So I was a little confused, at first, about eating it.

John and Mary sound suspiciously like JWs (a rather exaggerated version of JWs).

If most Christians don't seem logical to you, perhaps that's because they aren't. (Same goes for most non-Christians too) However, when you compare the average Christian uni student to the others, I have personally found the Christians are generally far better at (more willing to) debating. That's just my experience, and certainly not proof that this is true. But it does fit, since Christians, being the minority, have to go 'against the flow' to hold on to their beliefs. They are also more likely to be motivated to love the neighbour, including telling them about the wonderful love of God for ordinary sinful people. To do this, one needs to know something about what you believe, and what those who don't believe believe.

There will always be the the few, though, that give the rest a bad name. That applies to any belief system, I suppose. For example, Islam.

More consisntant, less full of holes, able to be historicly validated be people without agends, that sort of thing.


We may never be able to prove it empirically. However, it certainly can be investigated in the context of taking what He said and applying it to one's life. I can personally vouch for that.

What do you mean, 'bulletproof'?

I assume nothing, I question test and verify. I build my beliefs and ideas only on things that can be confirmed by multple sources.


I wonder if it is as big as the assumption that there is no god. Oh, that's right. you are not an atheist. Well, what about your assumption......well let me just have a guess....that God doesn't love you (assuming that you assume this?????)

Whatever your world view, whatever you believe, you are dreaming if you think there are no assumptions in it.
Someone told you that DNA carries genetic information, and you assumed that they were right. Someone else told you that if you go south far enough you find Australia (yea, my home country) (if you lived in China) and then the south pole. I suppose you assumed them to be right.

Someone else told you that God loves you. You assumed them wrong (once again, this is only an example, and I am assuming that you make this assumption).

By bulletproof god would take a little bit more time making sure both the text was clear and it was not able to be selectively edited like at the Council of Nicea

Because supposedly our whole afterlife supposedly rests on us reading this book and believing what it says about Jesus and that their description is accurate. It is a bit harder to do when the book itself has been edited in un known ways by man

My conclusion on the Bible is that it is the result of a combined effort, from both God and man. It contains the truths from God, as understood and written by man. God is not only capable of inspiring the original writer, but also the later editor. (an example is the books of Kings and Chronicles)

I guess it does involve a lot of trust, to accept that the truths of the Bible are accurate. But the trust is (in my case) directed to God, and not to man. The fact that I can recognise some of the limitations of man in it does not mean that it is inaccurate. For example, none of the writers were scientists (except for Solomon, perhaps). Their limitation means that some of their descriptions are lacking the sort of detail that I would use in my writings. However, the truths that they convey seem, for the most part, to make a lot of sense to me.

As for why God used man to write the book......there is definitely a major theme in the Bible about God making the most of the opportunity to work alongside itty bitty man, since working together is a great way to get to know each other. Relationship. That's what Jesus paid for with his blood.

If you find the human limitations in the Bible offensive, you would surely find the humanistic (God-less) interpretations on morality, biology, and the meaning of life to be offensive too (unless your appetite has been conditioned--if not, how would you know?). That would mean that you are simply offended by the limitations of your own species.

More consisntant, less full of holes, able to be historicly validated be people without agends, that sort of thing.

Ahh, but the holes have a role. They give you an excuse to not believe in God. If, for example, you had no excuse left, i.e., God 'came down' and spoke to you, and then you still chose not to believe, you would be in a very miserable condition. (e.g. the Israelites wandering around in the desert for forty years)

However, I do not necessarily admit that there are holes in the Bible. The holes may be in our human understanding. How would you and I know? How do you know what you don't understand?

Everybody has an agenda.

My conclusion on the Bible is that it is the result of a combined effort, from both God and man. It contains the truths from God, as understood and written by man. God is not only capable of inspiring the original writer, but also the later editor. (an example is the books of Kings and Chronicles)

I guess it does involve a lot of trust, to accept that the truths of the Bible are accurate. But the trust is (in my case) directed to God, and not to man. The fact that I can recognise some of the limitations of man in it does not mean that it is inaccurate. For example, none of the writers were scientists (except for Solomon, perhaps). Their limitation means that some of their descriptions are lacking the sort of detail that I would use in my writings. However, the truths that they convey seem, for the most part, to make a lot of sense to me.

As for why God used man to write the book......there is definitely a major theme in the Bible about God making the most of the opportunity to work alongside itty bitty man, since working together is a great way to get to know each other. Relationship. That's what Jesus paid for with his blood.

If you find the human limitations in the Bible offensive, you would surely find the humanistic (God-less) interpretations on morality, biology, and the meaning of life to be offensive too (unless your appetite has been conditioned--if not, how would you know?). That would mean that you are simply offended by the limitations of your own species.


Its all good and dandy coming from a position of faith … you very strongly believe there is a good god that will make sure that the bible is as intended (though there are others that very strongly argue very pointed translation errors … there are others better at that then me though)

But coming from one without faith using the bible to try to inspire me or others is hardly a solid proposition

It goes back to the circular argument similar to Me:
"You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

In the end that faith is required to have belief in the book to show you how to direct your faith

Without the initial infusion of faith it is practically worthless

I wonder if it is as big as the assumption that there is no god. Oh, that's right. you are not an atheist. Well, what about your assumption......well let me just have a guess....that God doesn't love you (assuming that you assume this?????)

Whatever your world view, whatever you believe, you are dreaming if you think there are no assumptions in it.
Someone told you that DNA carries genetic information, and you assumed that they were right. Someone else told you that if you go south far enough you find Australia (yea, my home country) (if you lived in China) and then the south pole. I suppose you assumed them to be right.

Someone else told you that God loves you. You assumed them wrong (once again, this is only an example, and I am assuming that you make this assumption).

See that's what I've been saying. Atheists need to make the same type arguments as believers just in reverse.

I assume nothing, I question test and verify. I build my beliefs and ideas only on things that can be confirmed by multple sources.

There are lots of Christians around who could testify to the power of God at work in their lives. In every nation of the world, from what I have read. That's a lot of sources.

Unspeakable, of course you make assumptions. Some are more reasonable than others (e.g, that the sun will rise tomorrow), but you would be void of a world view without them.
I'll bet anything that if I knew you personally I could point some out to you. Its a bit hard, though, since that only thing I know about you is what you have posted.

Perhaps you could tell me what you do believe, and I will tell you where your assumptions are.

See that's what I've been saying. Atheists need to make the same type arguments as believers just in reverse.

Well, it does have it's similarities. However, a spiritual Christian will argue for God on the basis of experience, while an atheist will argue against God on the basis of a lack of experience. I can see some differences there.

Ahh, but the holes have a role. They give you an excuse to not believe in God. If, for example, you had no excuse left, i.e., God 'came down' and spoke to you, and then you still chose not to believe, you would be in a very miserable condition. (e.g. the Israelites wandering around in the desert for forty years)

However, I do not necessarily admit that there are holes in the Bible. The holes may be in our human understanding. How would you and I know? How do you know what you don't understand?

Everybody has an agenda.
Yet he had on problem OT with proving himself unequivocally

That and whipping out those that disobeyed

Such a freedom of choice there
:rolleyes:

Its all good and dandy coming from a position of faith … you very strongly believe there is a good god that will make sure that the bible is as intended (though there are others that very strongly argue very pointed translation errors … there are others better at that then me though)

But coming from one without faith using the bible to try to inspire me or others is hardly a solid proposition

It goes back to the circular argument similar to

In the end that faith is required to have belief in the book to show you how to direct your faith

Without the initial infusion of faith it is practically worthless

Yes, I see your point. And I suppose God wants it that way so that no one comes to him on the basis of logic. He has made it clear that faith is the only basis. To put it bluntly, to be a Christian, you have to get off your bottom and take the plunge. If reason and logic and sight come to you after that, then that is a gift from God. But God doesn't want Christians that are without faith, because, at the end of the day, when all the cards are down, and nothing makes sense anymore, only faith will pick you up again and carry you through to a victorious end. Logic certainly won't.

Well, it does have it's similarities. However, a spiritual Christian will argue for God on the basis of experience, while an atheist will argue against God on the basis of a lack of experience. I can see some differences there.
It's just opposite, no difference as followed:

P1)Those who have a religious experience believes in a god
P2)A person has a religious experience
C) A person believes in a god

(P1&P2)->C

Thus:
P1,P2=true, C=true
P1=true,P2=false, C=undefined
P1=false,P2=true C=undefined
P1=false,P2=false C=undefined

See? It's sheer logic.
If/then statements cannot be determined by negating the if part.

You are just negating the experience part(P2)
They negate the experience leads to believing in a god part (P1)

Yes, I see your point. And I suppose God wants it that way so that no one comes to him on the basis of logic. He has made it clear that faith is the only basis. To put it bluntly, to be a Christian, you have to get off your bottom and take the plunge. If reason and logic and sight come to you after that, then that is a gift from God. But God doesn't want Christians that are without faith, because, at the end of the day, when all the cards are down, and nothing makes sense anymore, only faith will pick you up again and carry you through to a victorious end. Logic certainly won't.
Then god has chosen to leave me without faith to this point ... I have fallen back on logic and that has failed as well

Yet he had on problem OT with proving himself unequivocally

That and whipping out those that disobeyed

Such a freedom of choice there
:rolleyes:

The freedom that those people has, when I read it carefully, is that of choosing which god to worship. The golden calf, or the One who provided for them (albeit not without the testing). There was no question of whether God existed. But rather which god was the better one to worship. Since God was so close to those people, the consequences for their sin was quite immediate and direct. (God is holy.) To worship a golden calf, according to the scriptures, was a great monstrous evil.

The alternative is, eg, today, where God is more distant (in that His miracles are not everyday occurances that everyone can see), and people can actually relatively logically get away with believing in the non-existence of God (so long as they discount all the miracles recorded in the Bible). The result is that ignorance of God has increased, and this ignorance is what 'protects' modern sinful man from the awesome holiness of God, since ignorance is not so far from innocence.
(This is my interpretation, i.e. I didn't read it anywhere in the Bible.)

Disclaimer: I am certainly not describing atheists as innocent, but I do allow that there are possibly honest atheists.

It's just opposite, no difference as followed:

P1)Those who have a religious experience believes in a god
P2)A person has a religious experience
C) A person believes in a god

(P1&P2)->C

Thus:
P1,P2=true, C=true
P1=true,P2=false, C=undefined
P1=false,P2=true C=undefined
P1=false,P2=false C=undefined

See? It's sheer logic.
If/then statements cannot be determined by negating the if part.

You are just negating the experience part(P2)
They negate the experience leads to believing in a god part (P1)

Oh, crumbs, you lose me with all that algebra stuff!! Speak English, man, and I'll try to understand you. Speak mathematics, and I have to dig for my calculator (and get hopelessly lost). I don't know how to program a computer, nor have I studied computer science.

In short, I cannot reply to your comments as they are.

The freedom that those people has, when I read it carefully, is that of choosing which god to worship. The golden calf, or the One who provided for them (albeit not without the testing). There was no question of whether God existed. But rather which god was the better one to worship. Since God was so close to those people, the consequences for their sin was quite immediate and direct. (God is holy.) To worship a golden calf, according to the scriptures, was a great monstrous evil.

The alternative is, eg, today, where God is more distant (in that His miracles are not everyday occurances that everyone can see), and people can actually relatively logically get away with believing in the non-existence of God (so long as they discount all the miracles recorded in the Bible). The result is that ignorance of God has increased, and this ignorance is what 'protects' modern sinful man from the awesome holiness of God, since ignorance is not so far from innocence.
(This is my interpretation, i.e. I didn't read it anywhere in the Bible.)

Disclaimer: I am certainly not describing atheists as innocent, but I do allow that there are possibly honest atheists.


But you claim that direct intervention by god in informing us of the correct path would be a removal of free will

I dont see how it would be any more of a removal of free will then the people of the OT suffered through

I would rather have my actions consequences be more direct then a god who alows my ignorance to go on because of his distance then kicks my ass after death

Oh, crumbs, you lose me with all that algebra stuff!! Speak English, man, and I'll try to understand you. Speak mathematics, and I have to dig for my calculator (and get hopelessly lost). I don't know how to program a computer, nor have I studied computer science.

In short, I cannot reply to your comments as they are.
That’s standard philosophy notation

P = premice

So P = premice1

C = conclusion

After that it gets easy

Then god has chosen to leave me without faith to this point ... I have fallen back on logic and that has failed as well

Where there is a will, there is a way (although that could take some time). The God I believe in takes even a whisper of a will.

sometimes I wish I could just.......oh, nevermind.

Oh, crumbs, you lose me with all that algebra stuff!! Speak English, man, and I'll try to understand you. Speak mathematics, and I have to dig for my calculator (and get hopelessly lost). I don't know how to program a computer, nor have I studied computer science.

In short, I cannot reply to your comments as they are.

this isn't math or compsci, it's logic.

For example,
suppose two facts (A,B) are causal (aka one causes the other)
in such format:
A->B which we define true: A=true, B=true (-> means therefore)

There is one thing we can say:
Not B->Not A (Called Contrapositive)

What we cannot assume is:
Not A->Not B (Called Negation)

Likewise:
B->A (Negating the contrapositive)

Thus we come to our argument:
If an experience makes one believe in a god and a person had an experience
Then that person believes in a god

In other words:
A=experience makes one believe in a god
B=A person had an experience
C=That person believes in a god

(A&B)->C

By negating A or B, (A&B) is negated
Thus returning to our previous solutions to an if/then problem

There's your Logic101 for the day

But you claim that direct intervention by god in informing us of the correct path would be a removal of free will

I dont see how it would be any more of a removal of free will then the people of the OT suffered through

I would rather have my actions consequences be more direct then a god who alows my ignorance to go on because of his distance then kicks my ass after death

It's not a removal of free will, its just an in-your-face challenge. To fail the challenge would be to find yourself choosing death over life, emptiness over fulfillment, misery over happiness. Of course, we see the same today (remember that this is coming from a Christian perspective), but the effects would be less obvious than, say, the ground opening up and swallowing you alive.

But of course, the message of the Gospel is the challenge to choose life over death. Still the same message. Somehow, for many people, the Gospel seems to be the message of Jesus riding on a cannon ball. i.e, people doing evil in the name of God.

Not all the people of the OT suffered. Many of them chose to worship God only, rather than running off with other gods.

You may say that you would prefer their situation to your own, but that could be a case of 'grass greener on the other side'. I can't say.

Sorry all you real logicians out there, for ease sake I didn't include the
Experience->Belief in a god part. I wouldn't be capable of putting a complete truth table in forum format.

this isn't math or compsci, it's logic.

For example,
suppose two facts (A,B) are causal (aka one causes the other)
in such format:
A->B which we define true: A=true, B=true (-> means therefore)

There is one thing we can say:
Not B->Not A (Called Contrapositive)

What we cannot assume is:
Not A->Not B (Called Negation)

Likewise:
B->A (Negating the contrapositive)

Thus we come to our argument:
If an experience makes one believe in a god and a person had an experience
Then that person believes in a god

In other words:
A=experience makes one believe in a god
B=A person had an experience
C=That person believes in a god

(A&B)->C

By negating A or B, (A&B) is negated
Thus returning to our previous solutions to an if/then problem

There's your Logic101 for the day

Sorry, I've got this mental block with that sort of logic, and I'm running late for an appointment. I'm going to run away from NS now. But when i come back, I'll have another go at trying to understand this stuff.

No I expect more from an OMNIPOTENT God ..I expect a perfect book.


My conclusion on the Bible is that it is the result of a combined effort, from both God and man. It contains the truths from God, as understood and written by man. God is not only capable of inspiring the original writer, but also the later editor. (an example is the books of Kings and Chronicles)

I guess it does involve a lot of trust, to accept that the truths of the Bible are accurate. But the trust is (in my case) directed to God, and not to man. The fact that I can recognise some of the limitations of man in it does not mean that it is inaccurate. For example, none of the writers were scientists (except for Solomon, perhaps). Their limitation means that some of their descriptions are lacking the sort of detail that I would use in my writings. However, the truths that they convey seem, for the most part, to make a lot of sense to me.

As for why God used man to write the book......there is definitely a major theme in the Bible about God making the most of the opportunity to work alongside itty bitty man, since working together is a great way to get to know each other. Relationship. That's what Jesus paid for with his blood.

If you find the human limitations in the Bible offensive, you would surely find the humanistic (God-less) interpretations on morality, biology, and the meaning of life to be offensive too (unless your appetite has been conditioned--if not, how would you know?). That would mean that you are simply offended by the limitations of your own species.

Again a perfect God would make a perfect book.

Ahh, but the holes have a role. They give you an excuse to not believe in God. If, for example, you had no excuse left, i.e., God 'came down' and spoke to you, and then you still chose not to believe, you would be in a very miserable condition. (e.g. the Israelites wandering around in the desert for forty years)

However, I do not necessarily admit that there are holes in the Bible. The holes may be in our human understanding. How would you and I know? How do you know what you don't understand?

Everybody has an agenda.

I'm a Zen Deist.


There are lots of Christians around who could testify to the power of God at work in their lives. In every nation of the world, from what I have read. That's a lot of sources.

Unspeakable, of course you make assumptions. Some are more reasonable than others (e.g, that the sun will rise tomorrow), but you would be void of a world view without them.
I'll bet anything that if I knew you personally I could point some out to you. Its a bit hard, though, since that only thing I know about you is what you have posted.

Perhaps you could tell me what you do believe, and I will tell you where your assumptions are.

this isn't math or compsci, it's logic.

For example,
suppose two facts (A,B) are causal (aka one causes the other)
in such format:
A->B which we define true: A=true, B=true (-> means therefore)

There is one thing we can say:
Not B->Not A (Called Contrapositive)

What we cannot assume is:
Not A->Not B (Called Negation)

Likewise:
B->A (Negating the contrapositive)

Thus we come to our argument:
If an experience makes one believe in a god and a person had an experience
Then that person believes in a god

In other words:
A=experience makes one believe in a god
B=A person had an experience
C=That person believes in a god

(A&B)->C

By negating A or B, (A&B) is negated
Thus returning to our previous solutions to an if/then problem

There's your Logic101 for the day

Yery well put brings me back to philosophy 111 lol

Coming from a Christian but you kinda have to take somethings the bible says with a grain of salt. It was written by many diffrent people at many diffrent times. Since people are imperfect then something in the bible may be imperfect. I personally believe God is More like a more powerful version of humans since we are made in his image therefore we are like him. He can see everything yes that I believe. I don't think he can really foretell the future, I think he can predict it. Predictions can be broken. He can perhaps foresee the results of our chooses but merely predict which one we will choose. In that way he can see the future but we still have free will. God created satan and knew he was more than likely to betry him in the hopes that he would create temptation for man. If there was no temptation there would be no real choices or options. Also god can create a rock large then what he can lift because using knowledge he can lift it. God is wise because he knows more then we do. He has existed longer and therefore has had time to learn everything. God is perfect to us and compared to us because he created use to be like him so everything that we base right or wrong on is based off of him. Mabye my Idea is a bit odd and sort of well...... not like a lot of other christians. Escpecially since my view has God as not necissarily perfect. Only perfect compared to us and since we are imperfect we can't necissarily know what perfection is.

Couldn't Have put it better myself.

I'm neither a Christian nor a God botherer in any form, but I have studied, and continue to study religious scripture of the five major religions of the world. (Skip to paragraph 3 to skip the history lesson in paragraph 2)

The Old Testement is actually the Hebrew bible, the Tanakh, which is composed of three parts: the Torah (believed to be the books written by Moses), Nevi'im (the Prophets), and Kethuvim (the Writings). Christianity (a heresy to Judaism) comes along with the New Testement (how creative) which is a collection of essay's written by the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. Keep in mind, that these are selected writings of selected disciples. There was no Bible, as we know of it today, until the 700s I believe. A couple of guys got together and said, "Hey, let's get all this stuff and put it in a book." Not that literal of course, but they went through all the disciples (yeah, there is alot more than 12) and picked out the best ones to deliever the message of Christ. That's why I personally don't swing with the whole Christian thing, because the New Testement is put together in such a way to convert the reader on the spot; it's an essay paper that uses the Old Testement to make its point. That's why when people notice the difference between God in the Old Testement (wrathful and pissed off) and God in the New Testement (loving and caring) is because it is two different interpretations of God.

So, God, is all seeing, all knowing, and all loving, yes. The next question exists only in the Christian theology, not in the Jewish faith (they don't belive in a Hell, Jews, back me up on that one?). For Christians, you are not "Hell bound" if you accept Jesus into your life. Jesus forgives you of all your sins, because we do miss the mark often, and if you accept him in your life, you get a clean bill of health before entering into the Kingdom of Heaven. Yes, God "could" prevent the fall of Adam and Lucifer if God so wished. However, it is all a part of God's masterful plan that it happened that way. It wasn't as if God "let" it happen or "could prevent" it, but instead happened because it happened. God's will, God's plan. I don't see how God's foreknowledge would make the crucifixtion a suicide? Plus, some believe that Jesus was God incarnate, not actually a human being, but God, which wouldn't make it a suicide nor a death. The Romans crucified Jesus, and the fact that Jesus let it happen, or had the knowledge of it going to happen, doesn't make it a suicide. If Jesus managed to nail himself onto the cross and stick himself in the ground, he is the Son of God afterall, and let himself bleed to death, THAT makes it a suicide.

Overall, if you look at any religion with a pure logical eyes, it tends to melt away into non-sense. That's not the point though. Religion attempts to offer answers to the basic questions of human existance. You believe it or you don't. To try to make an argument against religion simply because they don't make sense, is non-sense. That's not the point. To make an argument for or against a religion, it is neccessary for you to understand the ins and outs of the religion (as written in the scriptures) to make a concise argument. Not through the logical mind of an outsider, or more blatantly, as a non-believer. Christianity wasn't built on faulty logic at all because that was not the foundation of the religion.

Responces in Red

Coming from a Christian but you kinda have to take somethings the bible says with a grain of salt. It was written by many diffrent people at many diffrent times. Since people are imperfect then something in the bible may be imperfect. I personally believe God is More like a more powerful version of humans since we are made in his image therefore we are like him. He can see everything yes that I believe. I don't think he can really foretell the future,400 YEARS AGO THEY WOULD BURN YOU FOR SAYING THAT! I think he can predict it. Predictions can be broken. He can perhaps foresee the results of our chooses but merely predict which one we will choose. In that way he can see the future but we still have free will. Actually you can't have both God created satan and knew he was more than likely to betry him in the hopes that he would create temptation for man. God as the source of evil If there was no temptation there would be no real choices or options. Also god can create a rock large then what he can lift because using knowledge he can lift it. God is wise because he knows more then we do. He has existed longer and therefore has had time to learn everything. God is perfect to us and compared to us because he created use to be like him so everything that we base right or wrong on is based off of him. Mabye my Idea is a bit odd and sort of well...... not like a lot of other christians. Escpecially since my view has God as not necissarily perfect. Only perfect compared to us and since we are imperfect we can't necissarily know what perfection is.

God knowing what we will choose to do is not the same as God forcing us to choose what we do. As Stephen Hawking said when asked about predestination

"Are we predestined? Yes. But since we dont know about it, we may as well not be"

Yes, but not only are we predestined through God, he chose the universe in which we were predestined to go to hell, not believe, commit unspeakable acts of evil, etc. God chose for all of these things to happen. God knows about it, god knew about it when he created the universe. God chose all our actions for us ahead of time. God created us to follow one predetermined chain of events from word go, a chain he created, a chain he made real. Predestination and God prevent man from having free will.

Human beings have free will. They can do this or that. They can sin or they cannot. God knows what you are going to do. God knows what is going to happen. God knows why you did what you did. God knows why you did this instead of that. If I have a choice to go left or right and I hesitantly go straight, God knew I was going to do that. I am still making the choice to go straight, God didn't force me to go straight. I made that choice. Now, you'll argue that the choice was never yours to make because it was already made. I'd argue that there was never a choice at all and that I was meant to go straight. Again, when you try to force logic into religion, it melts away into non-sense. That's not the point. Plus, to try and understand God's motivations as human beings is impossible. We are incapable of such things. If God want's human beings to have free will, we'll have free will. To try and argue, logically, that free will can't exist because we are predetermined in the grand scheme of things is logically true for human beings to understand. Our minds are so infantile compared to the wisdom of God, to speak on God's behalf or to try and understand God's motivation is more non-sensical than trying to show what non-sense Christianity, indeed of what all religions are. In the end, you don't believe in God or religions, well all the best to you, but to those that do, to try to convert them to secularist thinking or to try to show them how falwed there thinking is in believing such trite, is persecution of a persons beliefs.

Human beings have free will. They can do this or that. They can sin or they cannot. God knows what you are going to do. God knows what is going to happen. God knows why you did what you did. God knows why you did this instead of that. If I have a choice to go left or right and I hesitantly go straight, God knew I was going to do that. I am still making the choice to go straight, God didn't force me to go straight. I made that choice. Now, you'll argue that the choice was never yours to make because it was already made. I'd argue that there was never a choice at all and that I was meant to go straight. Again, when you try to force logic into religion, it melts away into non-sense. That's not the point. Plus, to try and understand God's motivations as human beings is impossible. We are incapable of such things. If God want's human beings to have free will, we'll have free will. To try and argue, logically, that free will can't exist because we are predetermined in the grand scheme of things is logically true for human beings to understand. Our minds are so infantile compared to the wisdom of God, to speak on God's behalf or to try and understand God's motivation is more non-sensical than trying to show what non-sense Christianity, indeed of what all religions are. In the end, you don't believe in God or religions, well all the best to you, but to those that do, to try to convert them to secularist thinking or to try to show them how falwed there thinking is in believing such trite, is persecution of a persons beliefs.

You are wrong. Once more:

For the sake of argument, we have God. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and the creator.

God makes the choice to create.

Omniscience means he knows everything, and thus will be completely aware of all consequences of his actions.

Omnipotence means he has the power to actualize any universe he sees fit to actualize.

Therefore, during creation, God could actualize anything and knew the consequences of his actualization, all of them.

Some of the consequences of his creation were evil consequences and all evil consequences are caused by God's creation. After all, regardless of whether you believe in free will, had God not created their could be no evil, correct?

However, God was omniscient and knew he would be creating evil, was omnipotent and could have avoided creating evil if he so chose, and went ahead with creation when he created the universe in which evil would come to be.

Furthermore, in knowing all consequences of his creation, he knew all choices we would make because they too are a consequence of being created the way we were. He knew all our actions we would make when creating the universe and knew all actions we would make in any other universe he could conceive. Therefore when he actualized one of those universes, he cemented all future actions of humanity, thus destroying any semblance of free will.

Divine omniscience and omnipotence preclude free will and human created evil.

Furthermore, taking you path example. Say God has a choice between two universes, one where you stray from the path, one where you don't. God chooses to actualize the one where you stray from the path. Did you have the choice to stray or not to stray? No, God made that choice for you at the moment of creation. You could only take the road you were created to take.

I will also point out "god work in mysterious ways" or "we can't understand him" are not arguments, they are dodges showing just how flimsy your faith actually is.

Again, I don't believe in God. Also, I don't need you to point out the obvious that I am wrong, I can gather that from your argument.

As I mentioned before, the "choice" does not exist. A choice is when you have an option of two or more things, right? I can go left or right, I go straight. God knew I was going to do that. There was never a choice to begin with. If God want's us to have free will, we can have free will (same goes for predestination). To wage an intellectual war against God and win, is not possible. At all (though it is a fun excercise). You are taking articles of faith and attempting to rationalize them as a human being. The arrogance of this is bafling. Human beings CANNOT understand the motivations of God, that is not a weak defense as you say. To understand the motivations of God, is to be God. Can you understand the motivations of why a person does this or that? No. You can theorize and guess all you want as to why a person did this or that, but in the end you can never understand the motivations behind anyone. I made the choice that I made because I made it. You make the choices that you make because you make them. Far be it for anyone to dictate why you did what you did. I don't know what goes on in any one person's head and I will never know. You can guess, but you will never truely understand a person's motivations. This is the same as trying to understand God's motivations. Also, you speak of God's consequences. Is that to say God created something and such and such happened as a consequence of that, accidently? Consequences don't happen if God is all-seeing and all-knowing. They happen because God made it happen. Evil, as Christians define it, exists because God made it exist. If God didn't want evil, it wouldn't be here.

I don't agree with that assessment of the world. There is nothing that requires God's motives to be overly complex nor his logic to be as such. The idea that God has his own brand of logic that nobody else can touch came out of questions raised about how an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being managed to screw things up so badly. God is only incomprehensible because the monotheists need him to be so to cover their bases because otherwise logic would tear them apart.

I don't agree with that assessment of the world. There is nothing that requires God's motives to be overly complex nor his logic to be as such. The idea that God has his own brand of logic that nobody else can touch came out of questions raised about how an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being managed to screw things up so badly. God is only incomprehensible because the monotheists need him to be so to cover their bases because otherwise logic would tear them apart.

Goodness. I'm not wanting you to agree with my assessment of the world. God's logic can be simple, it can be complex, it can be at a 4th grade level, it's whatever God wants it to be. Your feeling that God managed to "screw things up so badly" is your view, as a human being, that God screwed things up. Again, that can't happen as you and I, as far as I can tell, agree upon. Things are the way they are because God made them this way. Predestination exists because God want's it to exist. Maybe God just want us to try that one on, give it a good thinking, who knows. They are not screwed up, rather, they are devinely perfect. They are the way they are because God made them that way. For whatever reason. Again, logic, as we know it, in any religion, if forced upon it too much, will show that it is a piece of non-sense, as I have stated before. That is not the point of religion. Religion is just one of many options to try and answer the basic questions of life. You don't have to agree with it. This war you seem to be fighting is simply a new intellectual persecution of religious beliefs that people hold. You, I would guess, are atheist, agnostic, or a human secularist. Good for you. The fact that you are trying to show, logically, that God can't exist or certain doctrine's can't exist, is pushing your views on others and not respecting theirs. It is persecution. I respect your views. All I am arguing, is that you need to rethink what it is you are trying to say. You are coming off as a Cardinal in the Inquisition. Believe what you want, but remember, people don't agree with you and you don't agree with them. So be it. Does this make sense? Do you see where I am coming from?

Goodness. I'm not wanting you to agree with my assessment of the world. God's logic can be simple, it can be complex, it can be at a 4th grade level, it's whatever God wants it to be. Your feeling that God managed to "screw things up so badly" is your view, as a human being, that God screwed things up. Again, that can't happen as you and I, as far as I can tell, agree upon. Things are the way they are because God made them this way. Predestination exists because God want's it to exist. Maybe God just want us to try that one on, give it a good thinking, who knows. They are not screwed up, rather, they are devinely perfect. They are the way they are because God made them that way. For whatever reason. Again, logic, as we know it, in any religion, if forced upon it too much, will show that it is a piece of non-sense, as I have stated before. That is not the point of religion. Religion is just one of many options to try and answer the basic questions of life. You don't have to agree with it. This war you seem to be fighting is simply a new intellectual persecution of religious beliefs that people hold. You, I would guess, are atheist, agnostic, or a human secularist. Good for you. The fact that you are trying to show, logically, that God can't exist or certain doctrine's can't exist, is pushing your views on others and not respecting theirs. It is persecution. I respect your views. All I am arguing, is that you need to rethink what it is you are trying to say. You are coming off as a Cardinal in the Inquisition. Believe what you want, but remember, people don't agree with you and you don't agree with them. So be it. Does this make sense? Do you see where I am coming from?
I do, but at the same time I find the idea that forcing people to back up their beliefs amounts to religous persecution to be nonsense. Yes, religion tries to answer some of the most basic questions in the world. The fact is, so does science and science has real standards for how this is done. One can literally make up the most crazy ass ideas you can think of, put them on a page, and pass them off as religion. While it may serve as a response to basic questions, it will never answer them that way.

The fact is I do not believe that in the public arena, people are entitled to spout whatever they believe and have a magic shield that prevents anyone from challenging it. When I post my beliefs, I expect to have them questioned and challenged, I expect people to use logic, science, and sadly, burning bushes as weapons against what I believe. I will be questioned, I will be challenged, and I will probably have to reconsider my fundamental beliefs when someone else cuts them to shreds. As far as I am concerned, they can believe whatever they want in private. Once they start spreading those views in the public arena however, they should be held to the highest scrutiny. That is how man as a species learns. Humanity never learned anything through avoiding asking questions.

Religion is in competition with science for explaining the universe and science has the better standard for measuring accurracy. If one is to compare the two, and one must if they both claim to explain the way the universe works, the more accurate measure must be used in judging them. Public scrutiny is part of that.

I was getting a sense from your posts that you were attempting to denounce a persons religious beliefs simply because they can't back it up with hard core evidence and you were cutting Christianity into shreads because science, to you, offered better answers. That to me, is persecution. If I am wrong in that assumption, I apologize.

Science, using the imperical method, does show the logical progression of humanity. History shows the same to me, thus I like to consider History as my religion (not to sound too blasphemous). The fact between both of these disciplines is that each requires a degree of faith. Science is not 100% provable, 99.9% maybe, but that .1% can destroy entire theories. History is usually told from a certain perspective and can be bias and present only specific information, not the total truth. One can also make up something in science, show some expressions, and present it as truth. Science might even accept the most perposturous theory until proven otherwise.

I agree completly that any individual should defend their views as much as possible. Simply because they might not be able to use "facts" as you consider them, does not mean their arguments are illogical. Ask questions every second of every day. Even the most pious of persons should, and do, do this. I don't see why such a competition exists between science and religion, it has for century's, but both offer answers to different groups of people.

A competition suggests that once one wins, the other looses. Even if science proves everything without a shadow of doubt, you will still have religion. Science is a religion, in so much that it attempts to answer the very basic questions of human existance. I know most people in that camp cringe at such a thought, but that is how I define a religion (very broad I know). Attempting to compare religion and science is like comparing Christianity to Hinduism. They will have similarities and they will have differences. Each has it's own doctrine's and philosophies. Christianity offers a logical progression of what it considers "facts". Science does the same thing. Science has gaps in it. Science has theories that work, but remain unexplained. Science requires a degree of faith as does anything else.

I respect your opinions, but I have to disagree with your rationality.

I was getting a sense from your posts that you were attempting to denounce a persons religious beliefs simply because they can't back it up with hard core evidence and you were cutting Christianity into shreads because science, to you, offered better answers. That to me, is persecution. If I am wrong in that assumption, I apologize. What people believe is of no concern to me. What they tell other people to believe is. When they tell you that unless you agree with me, as people like Neo Rogolia have, that you are going to suffer for all eternity, that the only way to save yourself is to worship someone who may not have existed and something that probably doesn't, that an all loving creator is going to send 5/6 of humanity to hell, etc. I expect them to be able to provide a reason for it. I expect that if you are so convinced that the world is wrong and that you are right, you be able to give reasons why. I expect nothing more than they would expect of me, to put my money where my mouth is.

Science, using the imperical method, does show the logical progression of humanity. History shows the same to me, thus I like to consider History as my religion (not to sound too blasphemous). The fact between both of these disciplines is that each requires a degree of faith. The only faith that science requires is that people are self-interested enough to not submit pure made up bullshit to peer review. The fact is that scientists will always have other scientists who would do everything in their power to destroy each other in front of the scientific community to further their own career. You cannot rely on other scientists to cover for each other because they will be concerned with their own advancement and prestige. Science is not 100% provable, 99.9% maybe, but that .1% can destroy entire theories. History is usually told from a certain perspective and can be bias and present only specific information, not the total truth. Indeed, which is why recorded history need be taken with a grain of salt. Repeated tests and theories reviewed, modified, reinterpretted, reexamined, over and over until the theory matches facts. One can also make up something in science, show some expressions, and present it as truth. Science might even accept the most perposturous theory until proven otherwise. But scientists, as above, are always out to find holes in the theories. Give them half a chance and they will shred a theory to further themselves.

I agree completly that any individual should defend their views as much as possible. Simply because they might not be able to use "facts" as you consider them, does not mean their arguments are illogical. True enough, however, logic presents contradictions with their faith regardless of what facts they use. Ask questions every second of every day. Even the most pious of persons should, and do, do this. I don't see why such a competition exists between science and religion, it has for century's, but both offer answers to different groups of people. But they offer different answers to the same question. There is only one truth.

A competition suggests that once one wins, the other looses. Even if science proves everything without a shadow of doubt, you will still have religion. Science is a religion, in so much that it attempts to answer the very basic questions of human existance. I know most people in that camp cringe at such a thought, but that is how I define a religion (very broad I know). Most people don't. Attempting to compare religion and science is like comparing Christianity to Hinduism. They will have similarities and they will have differences. Each has it's own doctrine's and philosophies. Christianity offers a logical progression of what it considers "facts". Science does the same thing. Science has gaps in it. Science has theories that work, but remain unexplained. Science requires a degree of faith as does anything else. Yes, and those gaps are quickly filling. There is little faith involved in science because it is repeatable by its very nature. I can take testable hypotheses and get my own data and see if it matches. I can test the numbers in the formulae, I can observe the unvierse and get ym own formulae. Can I witness the ressurection of Jesus? Can I see heaven? Can I seek answers from God himself and know he did them? No, and that is why there is no faith to science and no science to faith.

I respect your opinions, but I have to disagree with your rationality.
You're call.

From the Biblical accounts, God didn't like the slaughter much either. But he makes it clear that those who persist in following wicked ways (for example the common practice of the Canaanites was to burn their children as sacrifices to the Pagan gods, among other things) were bringing the destruction down on their own heads. Since they ignored the warning, their blood was on their own heads.

You mean like Jephthah, when he sacrificed his virgin daughter in return for God's help in defeating the Ammonites? Or was that okay, because it wasn't a Pagan god he was sacrificing her to? And of course, there's the story of Abraham - who was spared the agony of having to sacrifice his son, Isaac at the last moment - but the fact remains that his god sometimes required such things and he had to do it if that's what his god demanded. And then there's the biblical practice of consecrating the first-born to God, regardless if it was man or beast, requiring a ransom that must be paid if one wished to redeem said first-born. But apparently in some cases, redemption was not allowed - all things, man or beast, devoted to God must be put to death (see Leviticus 27:28,29). Human sacrifice is disgusting - regardless of which god(s) you are sacrificing to.

Actually most Christians seem to have a lot of problems with this part of Scripture. It is hard to understand (for me anyway), even if I have understood the situation. But that may be because I am a child of Western thought (I shudder to think of those men with blood running down their swords, mercilessly killing women, old people, and little kids). I don't think that destruction of people and cultures is OK. But how do I know how much my own culture influences how I see the situation?

Cultural influences aside - wiping out other cultures is wrong. It is a shame that religion can blind us to this simple truth.

And then to bring some perspective into things, how about those old Pagan cultures who thought it a delightful thing to wipe out any other culture weaker than themselves? You can hardly claim superiority in this situation.

I am unaware that the ancient Pagans wiped out other cultures at the command of their god(s) - though they may certainly have believed they were doing so. But such deeds do not seem to have been recorded in any Pagan "holy books," the way they are recorded in the bible. But just so you are clear on my position, let me repeat - wiping out other cultures is wrong. Period.

I certainly didn't get the impression that the Bible account of Lot was putting any blame on the women. I did get the impression that it was simply telling the story. They (the girls) would have been influenced by the culture of Sodom too, I suppose. Lot probably took that risk when he moved into the city with his family.

The bible story put the blame on the girls - as usual.

Jesus certainly honoured a woman with being the first person to see him after his ressurrection.

That depends on which of the four gospels you choose to believe. According to Luke, Jesus first appeared to Cleopas, and another traveler to Emmaus.

As for Lot rising on the occasion and speaking, I couldn't find any mention of that in the Genesis account.

Are you intentionally misunderstanding my little innuendo? I didn't say that Lot rose on the occasion and spoke. I said he rose to the occasion, so to speak. In other words, he was able to "get it up" although he was so stinking drunk he couldn't even perceive when the girls laid down or got up. That sounds pretty fishy to me.

Well, it's now 6:30 am, and I have to start work now - so I'll have to finish answering your post either later today at lunch time or tomorrow morning before work. Until then.

You mean like Jephthah, when he sacrificed his virgin daughter in return for God's help in defeating the Ammonites? Or was that okay, because it wasn't a Pagan god he was sacrificing her to? And of course, there's the story of Abraham - who was spared the agony of having to sacrifice his son, Isaac at the last moment - but the fact remains that his god sometimes required such things and he had to do it if that's what his god demanded. And then there's the biblical practice of consecrating the first-born to God, regardless if it was man or beast, requiring a ransom that must be paid if one wished to redeem said first-born. But apparently in some cases, redemption was not allowed - all things, man or beast, devoted to God must be put to death (see Leviticus 27:28,29). Human sacrifice is disgusting - regardless of which god(s) you are sacrificing to.

You seem quite familiar with the Scriptures. Did you read it for yourself, or are you pulling examples out of a webpage? Actually, it doesn't make that much difference, I suppose, but you seem more knowledgeable about the Bible than what I thought the average Pagan is.

Jephthah made a vow. The Bible account gave no indication that it was a vow that God required, or that it was pleasing to God, nor does it praise him for doing a great thing in making such a vow. I get the impression that he was admired, though, not for making the vow, but for carrying through with it, at great personal cost. Indeed, I admire it too, in a sense. But were I in his situation, I would have gladly broken my vow (and my pride) to save my daughter. But in the context of that culture, where breaking your vow was worse than murdering your daughter, I suppose he chose the lesser of two evils. Your criticism is fair when applied to the culture, perhaps, but you are certainly not fair to criticise God or the Bible in that affair. As if God was happy to see that young lady burned! The label of stupidity should be leveled at Jephthah. On the other hand, he was in a desperate situation, hardly one like ours, sitting calmly at our computers and sipping coffee. Perhaps he wasn't thinking clearly, and thought that he would never live to see the vow through (he was facing the biggest battle of his life). In fact, the fellow who wrote that book of the Bible concludes that every man did what was right in his own eyes. It was a comment on the mess that the people were making of their lives.

As for Abraham and Isaac, it is perfectly true that God is dangerous, and sometimes unpredictable. I get the impression that lots of people seem to want a god that can be controlled or at least predicted. Not this God. He can even ask us to do things that seem rather strange. Imagine how Abraham was feeling! He would have been asking the question 'Is this God good?' Certainly, if God asked me today to go and murder a member of my own family, I would be in a bit of a pickle. But there was only one way for Abraham to find out. His faith told him that the God that he believed in was able to raise his dead son back to life. He passed the test. He chose God over the most precious 'thing' in his whole life. And in doing so, he proved that God IS good. In a sense, Jesus asks the same of everyone that follows him, to make our allegiance to God first and foremost, even at the expense of our families, and in particular, our own lives. That is hard to understand, until you obey it, and then you see, from a better perspective, that although God can be very hard to understand sometimes, he is right and always good.
(Disclaimer: I am not claiming that Christians are better than others. I merely mentioned that they see from a better perspective, which is only consistent with believing that your own belief is best--otherwise you wouldn't believe it.)

I would be the first to admit, though, that God does not always seem to match up to being good and right when judged by human understanding. But that is because human understanding is so little.

The Leviticus example of every first-born being either killed or ransomed was also explained in the same book. It was both a reminder of how God 'purchased' them from slavery in Egypt, and how He had to do it (by taking the life of the firstborn Egyptians). Thus it served to remind the people of how God 'owned' them. You might find it all a bit repulsive, but perhaps that demonstrates that you are not seeing all the pros and cons.



Cultural influences aside - wiping out other cultures is wrong. It is a shame that religion can blind us to this simple truth.

I agree with your first statement. Wrong for us. But not wrong for God, who sees life from a different perspective. He gave life. He gives us all the pleasures that we encounter in life. He is the creator. Thus he is perfectly right to take it back again. It is not wrong for him to take a life when it is 25 years old, or 95 years old (he decided how long the average lifespan is anyway). It would be wrong of him to unnecessarily punish a life that he created. But which one of us is in a position to decide what is fair for God to do and what isn't?



I am unaware that the ancient Pagans wiped out other cultures at the command of their god(s) - though they may certainly have believed they were doing so. But such deeds do not seem to have been recorded in any Pagan "holy books," the way they are recorded in the bible. But just so you are clear on my position, let me repeat - wiping out other cultures is wrong. Period.

Then you haven't heard of the ancient Celtic motto---might is right. Perhaps you haven't read up on their history????? They had gods for war. Practically all the old Pagans that I read about had gods of war. That means that these gods were to help them during times or war. Of course, that doesn't mean that they were ordered to wipe out other cultures. But the Celts, at one stage of their history anyway, made it a way of life to plunder other cultures. The Vikings were similar, not to mention all the Barbarian hordes that took Rome.


The bible story put the blame on the girls - as usual.

I can't see which part of Scripture points that out. It looks like that is the way that you interpret it, which is your right, of course, just as it's my right to challenge you to provide some sort of reasonable explanation to support it.



That depends on which of the four gospels you choose to believe. According to Luke, Jesus first appeared to Cleopas, and another traveler to Emmaus.

I didn't realize that they contradicted each other at this point. And I still don't see how you can claim that they do. Perhaps you would like to explain. In Luke 24, it describes Jesus walking with Cleopas and his companion, but doesn't say that they were the first to see him. I had assumed Mary to be the first, because she was there at the garden, and Jesus told her that he hadn't even been up to see his father yet, and that he told her to tell the others. The fact that this is described in another gospel is not evidence of a clash between the gospels.



Are you intentionally misunderstanding my little innuendo? I didn't say that Lot rose on the occasion and spoke. I said he rose to the occasion, so to speak. In other words, he was able to "get it up" although he was so stinking drunk he couldn't even perceive when the girls laid down or got up. That sounds pretty fishy to me.

Well, it's now 6:30 am, and I have to start work now - so I'll have to finish answering your post either later today at lunch time or tomorrow morning before work. Until then.

Aha, ahem, yesssss, hehe, I see your.....pun. You know, I can be really slow to catch on sometimes. I actually was wondering if you were reading a version of Genesis.
Well, I'm certainly not an expert on sex under the influence of alcohol, so I won't try to go there. But I have wondered about that too at times. Perhaps he was really 'out of his mind', not just because of the wine, but also because of the horror of the times. Hard to say, looking at the situation, sitting here comfortably in my room.

What an earth are you doing on NS at 6:30am???? Before work???? Don't you think you are addicted to NS (or something).
You don't have to answer this, but I am curious....what do you do for work?
Oh, and I'm still waiting for an answer to my other questions regarding your belief system.

You are wrong. Once more:

For the sake of argument, we have God. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and the creator.

God makes the choice to create.

Omniscience means he knows everything, and thus will be completely aware of all consequences of his actions.

Omnipotence means he has the power to actualize any universe he sees fit to actualize.

Therefore, during creation, God could actualize anything and knew the consequences of his actualization, all of them.

So far, I have followed your logic, and see nothing wrong with it.

Some of the consequences of his creation were evil consequences and all evil consequences are caused by God's creation. After all, regardless of whether you believe in free will, had God not created their could be no evil, correct?

Yes, once again, I cannot disagree. Except that I would not call evil a consequence of God's act of creation. It makes it sound like He caused it, or that it is His fault. So I would put it differently. I would say that in the world that God created, He allowed the possibility of evil when He chose to give free will to His creation. For love requires free will. No choice equals no love. It was like creating a risk, I suppose.

However, God was omniscient and knew he would be creating evil, was omnipotent and could have avoided creating evil if he so chose, and went ahead with creation when he created the universe in which evil would come to be.

Ah, that is where you and I depart. I say that He created the risk of evil, whereas you have introduced the concept of God creating evil. Yes, He knew that evil would come from the creation of the risk. But he also knew that love could come out of that risk. I guess he decided that it was worth it.

Furthermore, in knowing all consequences of his creation, he knew all choices we would make because they too are a consequence of being created the way we were. He knew all our actions we would make when creating the universe and knew all actions we would make in any other universe he could conceive. Therefore when he actualized one of those universes, he cemented all future actions of humanity, thus destroying any semblance of free will.

There is a huge leap in your logic here. You are saying (I think) that because God knew what would happen, e.g. love and evil, that He also decided what would happen. But you have not demonstrated how knowing is the same as making the choice. I've seen it debated times and time again on NS, but your assumption remains an assumption. And not a good one either, in my opinion (i.e., not very 'safe', in the sense that it doesn't seem very reasonable--it only convinces those who have already decided that they don't like God, or the concept of God).

Divine omniscience and omnipotence preclude free will and human created evil.

Statements like that don't make you even look like you are trying to be reasonable--unless you are just restating you earlier statement in another way.

Furthermore, taking you path example. Say God has a choice between two universes, one where you stray from the path, one where you don't. God chooses to actualize the one where you stray from the path. Did you have the choice to stray or not to stray? No, God made that choice for you at the moment of creation. You could only take the road you were created to take.

Everyone I have ever met has 'strayed from the path'. So your example cannot apply to real life (assuming that there is not such thing as a perfect person).



I will also point out "god work in mysterious ways" or "we can't understand him" are not arguments, they are dodges showing just how flimsy your faith actually is.

It is possible, of course, that a 'dodge' is also true. Certainly, your description of them as 'dodges' in no wise demonstrates them as false. At least, I fail to see the connection. Perhaps you could go into a little more depth, and show me how you know that such statements as these cannot possibly be true.

OK. I do have one question (at least). If nature is supposed to tell us how to live, what are the messages that comes to you from nature. For example, what is nature's equivalent of the ten commandments?

The messages from nature are about more than how to live - they also tell us about the nature of the Divine. I believe that information about the whole is contained in the part. I can look at nature and see that for the most part, living beings are divided into both male and female - so is the Divine. Everything in nature tends toward balance - so does the Divine. Nature tells me that time is circular, and everything happens in cycles. It also tells me that we are all connected one to another. A greater message to me individually is to take no more than I give and to the best of my ability, to harm none (or if that is impossible, to cause the least amount of harm possible). I thought the Disney movie, "The Lion King" portrayed this concept beautifully, by the way.

Oh, more questions What is the purpose to life? Why are we here? What happens when we die?

The purpose of life is to allow the Divine to experience life through all of us. When we die, the energy that is us lives on and the cycle continues.

I can see why you might be attracted to the Pagan ......religion??, since there involves an equal amount of honour for both the male and the female, perhaps even more for the female, since she is the 'source' of life????

Paganism is not just one religion, as I'm sure you already realize (in fact, it's kind of like Christianity in that respect). We Pagans tend to be very individualistic in our beliefs - since we don't really have a "holy book" to tell us what to believe, we have to think things through on our own. But then, we prefer it that way.

I was 'programmed' as a child, since I was raised by a godly mother (while my dad was off running around with other women). The anger in my life eventually led me to reject my childhood programimg. But when I discovered that my own way was not fun anymore (that in fact it appeared quite empty), I decided to investigate this Jesus thing. I have not been disappointed, and have not even been tempted to look back ever since, though I am still very much on the journey.

People do tend to go back to whatever gave them security as little children, I notice. For me that was nature. When I was a little kid, I could be found playing in the swamps or in the woods with any number of creatures that would make others squeemish. I was communing with the only gods I knew at that time in the only way I knew how.

Perhaps you may be so kind as to point out some of our blindnesses. I, for one, am willing to learn about them.

As for Jesus being referred to as a serpent---I can't think of any right now. Perhaps you could help me. I am assuming that you are referring to the Bible.

For the sake of time, I will answer this in one shot with some examples of clues I've found in the bible hinting that Jesus was a serpent who was not to be worshipped by the children of Israel (which I have always felt that Christians are 100% blind to). Unfortunately, I don't have much time left on my lunch hour to expound on any of this, so if you don't see what I see, please ask.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Numbers 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

Isaiah 14:29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

Genesis 3:4,5 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

Genesis 3:14,15 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

Isaiah 14:12-14 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Revelations 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


It's back to work for me - later.

The point is the Christian God concept is illogical and sort of silly. IF God did exist in the Christian model then the Bible is NOT an accurate dipiction unlest you follow the Maltheist line of thought.Only Gnostic Christians with their Rex Mundi seem to overcome this.



So far, I have followed your logic, and see nothing wrong with it.



Yes, once again, I cannot disagree. Except that I would not call evil a consequence of God's act of creation. It makes it sound like He caused it, or that it is His fault. So I would put it differently. I would say that in the world that God created, He allowed the possibility of evil when He chose to give free will to His creation. For love requires free will. No choice equals no love. It was like creating a risk, I suppose.



Ah, that is where you and I depart. I say that He created the risk of evil, whereas you have introduced the concept of God creating evil. Yes, He knew that evil would come from the creation of the risk. But he also knew that love could come out of that risk. I guess he decided that it was worth it.



There is a huge leap in your logic here. You are saying (I think) that because God knew what would happen, e.g. love and evil, that He also decided what would happen. But you have not demonstrated how knowing is the same as making the choice. I've seen it debated times and time again on NS, but your assumption remains an assumption. And not a good one either, in my opinion (i.e., not very 'safe', in the sense that it doesn't seem very reasonable--it only convinces those who have already decided that they don't like God, or the concept of God).



Statements like that don't make you even look like you are trying to be reasonable--unless you are just restating you earlier statement in another way.



Everyone I have ever met has 'strayed from the path'. So your example cannot apply to real life (assuming that there is not such thing as a perfect person).




It is possible, of course, that a 'dodge' is also true. Certainly, your description of them as 'dodges' in no wise demonstrates them as false. At least, I fail to see the connection. Perhaps you could go into a little more depth, and show me how you know that such statements as these cannot possibly be true.

So far, I have followed your logic, and see nothing wrong with it. Alright.

Yes, once again, I cannot disagree. Except that I would not call evil a consequence of God's act of creation. It makes it sound like He caused it, or that it is His fault. So I would put it differently. I would say that in the world that God created, He allowed the possibility of evil when He chose to give free will to His creation. For love requires free will. No choice equals no love. It was like creating a risk, I suppose.
But how could it be a risk? A risk implies some sort of unknwon element yet for an omniscient being there can be nothing unknown.

Ah, that is where you and I depart. I say that He created the risk of evil, whereas you have introduced the concept of God creating evil. Yes, He knew that evil would come from the creation of the risk. But he also knew that love could come out of that risk. I guess he decided that it was worth it.
But at the same time, he created Eden in which all loved him of their own free will. Clearly it is within his power to create a universe in which everyone loves him of their own free will. Yet, not only did he create a universe in which no less 5/6 of the poplulation of the globe don't love him today, he created a universe in which attrocities beyond descript make it harder to have faith. Further, he could have created any world, even with the risk of evil, and still had everyone choose to love him.


There is a huge leap in your logic here. You are saying (I think) that because God knew what would happen, e.g. love and evil, that He also decided what would happen. But you have not demonstrated how knowing is the same as making the choice. I've seen it debated times and time again on NS, but your assumption remains an assumption. And not a good one either, in my opinion (i.e., not very 'safe', in the sense that it doesn't seem very reasonable--it only convinces those who have already decided that they don't like God, or the concept of God). But he did choose. He created and he created one universe over all other possible universes. All the events that transpired did so because God chose this universe instead of choosing any other universe. That is the very nature of an omniscient, omnipotent creator. He chose one universe from among infinitely many. Therefore he chose everything in that universe because he knew everything in that universe would be as it was when he chose and created it.



Statements like that don't make you even look like you are trying to be reasonable--unless you are just restating you earlier statement in another way. I was.



Everyone I have ever met has 'strayed from the path'. So your example cannot apply to real life (assuming that there is not such thing as a perfect person). Nothing required you to stray from the path though and God could have actualized a universe in which nobody did. He is God after all.

It is possible, of course, that a 'dodge' is also true. Certainly, your description of them as 'dodges' in no wise demonstrates them as false. At least, I fail to see the connection. Perhaps you could go into a little more depth, and show me how you know that such statements as these cannot possibly be true.
Because from what we know of God from the bible he was not particularly mysterious nor were his motives hard to judge. The God that assorted biblical characters spoke with was fairly upfront.

oh, dear. is such a shame you feel this may. I hope I can change your mind, if you're willing to read.
Yes, God is most definitely omnipotent, so He saw the fall of Adam and Lucifer, and all other humans who are now in Hell. However, as you said, God loved them. God loved them so much that He allowed them to do as they wished. people in Hell WANTED to go there. God wants all His children in Heaven. But, He had to let these people do what they wanted, because He is that loving.

And Christ's crucifixion was DEFINITELY not a suicide. it was abnegation. For God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son, true God and True Man (don't understand? we're humans, too lowly to. we just have to accept).
because Adam and Eve, creators of original sin, were human, Jesus, True God, and True man had to die to reopen the doors of heaven.
God bless you.

And Christ's crucifixion was DEFINITELY not a suicide. it was abnegation. For God loved the world so much that He gave His only Son, true God and True Man (don't understand? we're humans, too lowly to. we just have to accept).
because Adam and Eve, creators of original sin, were human, Jesus, True God, and True man had to die to reopen the doors of heaven.
God bless you.
He sacraficed his only sun to himself

He was the only one requiring death

The blame for jesus's death rests squarly on his shoulders

If it was nessisary I dont know but it seems like an omnipotent being could change the rules to salvation without killing someone to do it

But how could it be a risk? A risk implies some sort of unknwon element yet for an omniscient being there can be nothing unknown.

Right. Not exactly a risk, but I couldn't think of a better word at the time. What I meant by the word 'risk' was more like 'possibility'. This is distinct from a situation in where God actually created evil, which seemed to be what you were saying.

Actually, that raises another issue. Just what is omniscient? I realize that the common concept of omniscience is that one knows all there is to know. But perhaps that is not what the Bible is really getting at. I suppose the term was invented before the rise of science and logic of our modern times. For example, Jesus told his disciples that there was some things that only the Father knew, not the Son (i.e., himself). I'm not sure if that also applied to the third member of the Trinity. The thing that Jesus himself did not know was the exact day of his return. How, then, could Jesus be omniscient? He certainly wasn't so, not in terms of what most people commonly understand to be omniscient.


But at the same time, he created Eden in which all loved him of their own free will. Clearly it is within his power to create a universe in which everyone loves him of their own free will. Yet, not only did he create a universe in which no less 5/6 of the poplulation of the globe don't love him today, he created a universe in which attrocities beyond descript make it harder to have faith. Further, he could have created any world, even with the risk of evil, and still had everyone choose to love him.

As I explained before, you cannot have love without having the option not to love. God originally made Adam and Eve to walk and talk with him in the garden. That sounds like a world where the natural thing to do was to enjoy a friendship with God. Love was more natural than evil. But in order for it to be love, there had to be that option. The option that Adam and Eve took resulted in evil being more natural, and friendship with God being rather difficult. That is why we have the mess today. Perhaps you are complaining about how the mistake of a couple of people brings about such a mess today. That does seem a bit harsh to me too. Even if they are our parents. And yet the Gospel is that God has made a way for the love to be 'natural' again.
Sure, we can criticise God over how He has done things, but that doesn't make us look good, particularly when we obviously cannot see things as he sees them. Who knows, perhaps if we could see them as He does, we might do things the same as He does.

But he did choose. He created and he created one universe over all other possible universes. All the events that transpired did so because God chose this universe instead of choosing any other universe. That is the very nature of an omniscient, omnipotent creator. He chose one universe from among infinitely many. Therefore he chose everything in that universe because he knew everything in that universe would be as it was when he chose and created it.

Of course, the Christian reply would be that any universe God chose would have had the same potential to become such a mess. So long as God wanted love to exist in his creation, he would always have to provide the options of love or disobedience. Perhaps a better universe would be one where Adam and Eve hadn't sinned yet. Where you and I could travel back in time (or some such scifi fantasy) and tell them not to go anywhere near that bloody tree. Perhaps they would listen to us. Or perhaps not, considering that they didn't listen to God, who was suppose to be their friend, and who had given them a pretty stiff warning.
Furthermore, you ask why God didn't choose the universe where Adam and Eve didn't sin. But then it could be argued that that is removing the choice from Adam and Eve, since only the universe where they got it right would be chosen. The choice would still be in God's hands. But the whole point of loving and being loved is that both parties have the choice.


I was.
Please accept my apologies.


Nothing required you to stray from the path though and God could have actualized a universe in which nobody did. He is God after all.

Like I said, that would mean that God is making the choice, not us. It's defeating the whole point of love.


Because from what we know of God from the bible he was not particularly mysterious nor were his motives hard to judge. The God that assorted biblical characters spoke with was fairly upfront.

It's true that the Bible was supposed to teach us how to know God. But it also teaches us that God's ways are higher than our ways, and his thoughts higher than ours. On one hand, it invites us to explore the love of God, and on the other hand, it warns us that it (the love of God) is so deep that we shall never fully understand it. I suppose the discovery is half the delight, and the journey is a journey after all.

He sacraficed his only sun to himself

He was the only one requiring death

The blame for jesus's death rests squarly on his shoulders

If it was nessisary I dont know but it seems like an omnipotent being could change the rules to salvation without killing someone to do it

How do you know that the sacrifice (the death of Jesus) was to God? Does the Bible say that?

How do you know that God was the only one who required death? There was an indication that Satan required it too, before he would release what was rightfully his (when Adam and Eve chose his way in the garden).

It could be argued that the blame for Jesus' death was his own fault. Or it could be argued that it was the Father's fault, since Jesus came to do His will. Or it could be argued that it was the fault of humans, since we are the ones who do what is evil, after all.

Perhaps God can change some rules, like gravity, etc. But perhaps there are some things He can't change (I use that word very carefully) without changing Himself. For example, if He is totally righteous and totally just, how can He then smile at sin, without allowing injustice?

The point is the Christian God concept is illogical and sort of silly. IF God did exist in the Christian model then the Bible is NOT an accurate dipiction unlest you follow the Maltheist line of thought.Only Gnostic Christians with their Rex Mundi seem to overcome this.

What a conclusion!!!

I suppose you have explained this all before. But perhaps you could be so kind as to give me some sort of outline as to how you arrived at this. (And then I can decide whether I know enough to debate you.)

If this is the old issue of how God can be omniscient and still not be responsible for our evil, then don't bother. That argument is not convincing (unless you have already decided that you don't like God or the concept of God).

The messages from nature are about more than how to live - they also tell us about the nature of the Divine. I believe that information about the whole is contained in the part. I can look at nature and see that for the most part, living beings are divided into both male and female - so is the Divine. Everything in nature tends toward balance - so does the Divine. Nature tells me that time is circular, and everything happens in cycles. It also tells me that we are all connected one to another. A greater message to me individually is to take no more than I give and to the best of my ability, to harm none (or if that is impossible, to cause the least amount of harm possible). I thought the Disney movie, "The Lion King" portrayed this concept beautifully, by the way.

I'm not trying to upset anyone, but would you say that the 'messages from nature' tell us that it is wrong for a father to kill his children? That happens in nature. What about lying and cheating? The animals 'appear' to do this all the time. Witness those colourful little butterflies, whose colour warns everyone not to eat them because they are poisonous, when in reality, it's all just a front.
What about sleeping with someone else's partner? Would that be wrong? Happens all the time in nature.


If you allow evolution, then I suppose you see all of life today as one circle that will come to a conclusion in, say, about a thousand years (at this rate), followed by several billion years of no life, followed by the triumphant emergence of life again. Did I get it right?



The purpose of life is to allow the Divine to experience life through all of us. When we die, the energy that is us lives on and the cycle continues.

But what is the purpose of allowing the Divine to experience life through all of us? What is the point of that?



Paganism is not just one religion, as I'm sure you already realize (in fact, it's kind of like Christianity in that respect). We Pagans tend to be very individualistic in our beliefs - since we don't really have a "holy book" to tell us what to believe, we have to think things through on our own. But then, we prefer it that way.

Yes, I do see the similarities with Christianity. Although I tend to get a bit offended when someone puts my belief in the same category at the JWs. But I suppose there are some similarities there too.



People do tend to go back to whatever gave them security as little children, I notice. For me that was nature. When I was a little kid, I could be found playing in the swamps or in the woods with any number of creatures that would make others squeemish. I was communing with the only gods I knew at that time in the only way I knew how.

Yes, people do. Out of interest, though, have you ever been away from nature at any stage? (By away, I mean you deliberately turned your back on it.)
Going back to what you knew as a child does not have to mean that you are returning to your security though. In my case, I was not going back, but moving forward. For me it was definitely a step away from security, for it meant acknowledging Jesus Christ as the Lord of my life, rather than keeping that position for myself. It was a scarey thing to do. Like standing on a 15 meter diving board, about to jump into the water, not knowing if it was going to be ice cold, boiling hot, or infested with crocs. Following Jesus is the most scarey thing I have ever done--and that coming from what most people I know consider a thrill freak.



For the sake of time, I will answer this in one shot with some examples of clues I've found in the bible hinting that Jesus was a serpent who was not to be worshipped by the children of Israel (which I have always felt that Christians are 100% blind to). Unfortunately, I don't have much time left on my lunch hour to expound on any of this, so if you don't see what I see, please ask.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

Numbers 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

Yes, an interesting thing, this serpent on the pole. Why God commanded Moses to make a serpent, of all things. Perhaps it was something to do with the fact that the people were dying of snake bites at the time. I think it represented God's intervention in a situation where the sin of the people (complaining, rebelling) was destroying them.
But what makes it even more interesting is that Jesus himself referred to it, and likened himself to that bronze snake, in that he had to be lifted up on a cross. I suppose, in taking the sin of the whole world on his shoulders, he had to become something of a 'grandaddy snake' (the creature most likely to represent evil in that culture). When you think about it, it kinda makes a strong image. Once again, God intervening, saving the people from their sins. Not that I even pretend to understand all the symbols that I read in the Bible. I'm no Bible scholar--just an ordinary Christian.

As for the reference to the worship of Nehushtan, that is often the way with the humans in the Bible. They tended to get carried away worshipping the symbol, rather than focussing on what the symbol represented. Old King Hezekiah was right to destroy the symbol when it got to that point. I fail to see, though, how that means that they were not to worship Jesus--particularly when he wasn't around in Hezekiah's day.


Isaiah 14:29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

This is quite an interesting piece of scripture. I think, though, that it is a colourful piece of language that was supposed to convey a serious warning to the Philistines. Does it refer to Jesus? We certainly see that the Philistines were destroyed completely. Was it Jesus who did it? Certainly not. The one to who the scripture refers is Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, king of Judah (if I have my facts right). He was the one who invited the Assyrians to come and help him against the sister nation of Israel. Later on, the Assyrians destroyed the Philistine cities, and removed the inhabitants to Mespotamia. It may have been a reference to that original invitation of Ahaz's that led to the destruction of the Philistines. In any case, I can't see how this refers to Jesus.


Genesis 3:4,5 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

It is not unusual to see God and Satan promising the same thing to humans, i.e. a God-like status and eternal life. This is consistent with one being a deception and one being true. Perhaps I am blind, but I cannot see how that makes Jesus the same as Satan. Pointing out a similarity is hardly a convincing argument.

The eating flesh and drinking blood part does come as somewhat of a shock. But I thought it would be obvious, upon reflection, that Jesus was not speaking of the material flesh and blood, but the spiritual equivalent. No doubt, he wanted his listeners to do some real thinking of their own. That is often what he was trying to do, as was the case with the parables.



John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.

Genesis 3:14,15 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

John 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

John 13:18 I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me.

Actually, I hadn't see that one before, the part about the seed of the woman bruising the head of the serpent with the heel, and how Judas was described as lifting up his heel against Jesus. But in the context of Christianity, it does make a lot of sense. Through the temptation of Satan came hatred into our world. Hatred, and a curse, that should be directed at him, who played a horrible part in introducting evil into the world. Along comes Jesus, and takes the bruising, the hatred and the curse, not only from the 'heel' of Judas, but also of all mankind (represented by the Romans and the Jewish authorities), who hung him on a cross, in order that we might be free from the curse. Wow. Love in it's finest moment. The symbolism is rich. And I never saw that before, in the context of the 'heel' and the 'serpent'.


Isaiah 14:12-14 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Revelations 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


It's back to work for me - later.

Pterodonia, you should not take isolated parts of scripture and try to mix them together to produce some sort of message that changes everytime you mix another piece of scripture. Each piece of scripture has it's context. If everyone did that, we would have, for example, people making slaves out of dark skinned people. Oh wait. That did happen. But only because some people were doing what you are doing.....taking things out of context. Noah curses Canaan, because of a wrong that his father did. It doesn't say that Noah did the right thing. It just recorded what happened. Why on earth should that mean that we today should find all the descendents of Canaan and make slaves of them?
Or more to the point, references on the similarities of Jesus and Satan are hardly going to convince the average Christian that they are one and the same, or that Jesus was not supposed to be worshipped, particularly when the NT is flowing over with the message of the Gospel, in which Jesus features as the God who came to save us from our sins.

I would have to disagree with the above.
If aanything, isolating only two or three stories and making a point isn't enough. We must take the entire message as a whole to fulfill our end of the bargain. Looking at individual stories makes it too circumstantial.

How do you know that the sacrifice (the death of Jesus) was to God? Does the Bible say that?

How do you know that God was the only one who required death? There was an indication that Satan required it too, before he would release what was rightfully his (when Adam and Eve chose his way in the garden).

It could be argued that the blame for Jesus' death was his own fault. Or it could be argued that it was the Father's fault, since Jesus came to do His will. Or it could be argued that it was the fault of humans, since we are the ones who do what is evil, after all.

Perhaps God can change some rules, like gravity, etc. But perhaps there are some things He can't change (I use that word very carefully) without changing Himself. For example, if He is totally righteous and totally just, how can He then smile at sin, without allowing injustice?


God is an all powerful deity by definition he has the power to do anything ... god is the one in charge of judging souls
God is the only one that required the death of Jesus to atone for our sins because god is the only one we are required to atone to in the end

God made the requirements god came up with the plan to change them and for some reason someone had to die to change the atonement process. That process to me does not seem truly fair or loving … but that’s not what I am arguing
In the end god is the responsible one … for good or bad it was his actions that first required a sacrifice of a “perfect” human … then created said human and placed him in a time and a place to be sacrificed

I'm not trying to upset anyone, but would you say that the 'messages from nature' tell us that it is wrong for a father to kill his children? That happens in nature.

This frequently happens with, say, fish - which spawn maybe hundreds of progeny at the same time. From what I've observed, it seldom happens with mammals, and especially not when there are just one or two offspring born at a time.

What about lying and cheating? The animals 'appear' to do this all the time. Witness those colourful little butterflies, whose colour warns everyone not to eat them because they are poisonous, when in reality, it's all just a front.

It's called survival - and I have no problem if someone must lie to survive - this happens all the time with humans, too. But life and death situations aside - how do animals lie and cheat?

What about sleeping with someone else's partner? Would that be wrong? Happens all the time in nature.

Marriage is a human construct that evolved to benefit our species - marital type relationships seldom occur in the animal kingdom. The animals work this out as best suits their own species and situations. So do humans - where's the conflict?

If you allow evolution, then I suppose you see all of life today as one circle that will come to a conclusion in, say, about a thousand years (at this rate), followed by several billion years of no life, followed by the triumphant emergence of life again. Did I get it right?

It may quite possibly work out that way (though I'd be surprised if life on this planet could last even that long, at the rate we're going). I'm not really worried about it in any case.

[QUOTE=Bruarong]But what is the purpose of allowing the Divine to experience life through all of us? What is the point of that?

What is the point of anything? Isn't it simply to be? As God is reported to have said, I AM. There doesn't seem to be any other point, as far as I can see.

Yes, I do see the similarities with Christianity. Although I tend to get a bit offended when someone puts my belief in the same category at the JWs. But I suppose there are some similarities there too.

I know what you mean - it's kind of like lumping Ásatrú (who prefer the term "heathen" over "Pagan", by the way), or even Satanists (Goddess forbid) in with Pagans.

Yes, people do. Out of interest, though, have you ever been away from nature at any stage? (By away, I mean you deliberately turned your back on it.)

I haven't deliberately turned my back on it, but as I became an adult, life happened and I had to deal with it. I'd say that nature definitely took a back seat to raising children and earning a living. Though my children are now grown, I still have to make a living, so I'm not as free to spend time with nature as I'd like (working nearly 12 hours a day, 5 days a week doesn't really leave much time for anything else - even weekends are spent cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, washing, ironing and just generally getting ready for the work week ahead). If the weather permits, I like to take a walk at lunch time, but there isn't all that much in the way of nature in a business park (although I do occasionally see a rafter of wild turkeys).

As for the reference to the worship of Nehushtan, that is often the way with the humans in the Bible. They tended to get carried away worshipping the symbol, rather than focussing on what the symbol represented. Old King Hezekiah was right to destroy the symbol when it got to that point. I fail to see, though, how that means that they were not to worship Jesus--particularly when he wasn't around in Hezekiah's day.

I, on the other hand, see a direct correlation between the two - Jesus may have been sent to heal the people and point the way to God, but then he became the object of worship and, like Nehushtan, had to be destroyed. Oh yes, I also forgot to mention that a great, great,..., great grandmother of Jesus was named "Nehushta."

This is quite an interesting piece of scripture. I think, though, that it is a colourful piece of language that was supposed to convey a serious warning to the Philistines. Does it refer to Jesus? We certainly see that the Philistines were destroyed completely. Was it Jesus who did it? Certainly not. The one to who the scripture refers is Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, king of Judah (if I have my facts right). He was the one who invited the Assyrians to come and help him against the sister nation of Israel. Later on, the Assyrians destroyed the Philistine cities, and removed the inhabitants to Mespotamia. It may have been a reference to that original invitation of Ahaz's that led to the destruction of the Philistines. In any case, I can't see how this refers to Jesus.

I should have bolded the words, "serpent's root," which, as I understand it, was a general reference to the bloodline of Jesse. If Jesse was a serpent, so was his offspring, and his offspring after him, and so on. It seems that Jesus descended from a long line of serpents. So how could he be anything other than a serpent himself?

It is not unusual to see God and Satan promising the same thing to humans, i.e. a God-like status and eternal life. This is consistent with one being a deception and one being true. Perhaps I am blind, but I cannot see how that makes Jesus the same as Satan. Pointing out a similarity is hardly a convincing argument.

The serpent has promised eternal life since the garden. Jesus said that if he had not come and spoken to "them," they would not have sin. Effectively, if you read this statement at face value, Jesus took credit for introducing sin to the world - making him the original serpent.

Actually, I hadn't see that one before, the part about the seed of the woman bruising the head of the serpent with the heel, and how Judas was described as lifting up his heel against Jesus. But in the context of Christianity, it does make a lot of sense. Through the temptation of Satan came hatred into our world. Hatred, and a curse, that should be directed at him, who played a horrible part in introducting evil into the world. Along comes Jesus, and takes the bruising, the hatred and the curse, not only from the 'heel' of Judas, but also of all mankind (represented by the Romans and the Jewish authorities), who hung him on a cross, in order that we might be free from the curse. Wow. Love in it's finest moment. The symbolism is rich. And I never saw that before, in the context of the 'heel' and the 'serpent'.

On the other hand, if Jesus was the one who introduced sin to the world in the first place, wouldn't it make sense that he was the one who should pay the price for it? There is no other way this can make any sense at all.

Or more to the point, references on the similarities of Jesus and Satan are hardly going to convince the average Christian that they are one and the same, or that Jesus was not supposed to be worshipped, particularly when the NT is flowing over with the message of the Gospel, in which Jesus features as the God who came to save us from our sins.

Oh, I almost forgot the best part. You know that the name "Lucifer" means "morning star", right? The last words of Jesus that are recorded in Revelation are as follows:

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

This is quite a revelation indeed!

Doesn't God's absolute foreknowledge make the crucifixion a suicide?

Just asking.

if so doesnt jesus/god have to stay in hell?

if so doesnt jesus/god have to stay in hell?
God is in hell anyways lol he is omnipresent (he is everywhere) :p

God is in hell anyways lol he is omnipresent (he is everywhere) :p

haha didnt think of that. you win! :D

haha didnt think of that. you win! :D
Grabs my winners cookie http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:2HjWuAjyCmcJ:www.gatewayfundraising.com/images/cookie%2520b.jpg

I would have to disagree with the above.
If aanything, isolating only two or three stories and making a point isn't enough. We must take the entire message as a whole to fulfill our end of the bargain. Looking at individual stories makes it too circumstantial.

After reading your post, I didn't quite get which of the 'above' that you were disagreeing with. Pterodonia or me?

After reading your post, I didn't quite get which of the 'above' that you were disagreeing with. Pterodonia or me?

Both, kinda. I just say that people need to consider all the messages put together to build a true understanding of Jesus Christ.

Are you familiar with the Gnostic King of Heaven vs. King of Earth? If not I'll explain that 1st.



What a conclusion!!!

I suppose you have explained this all before. But perhaps you could be so kind as to give me some sort of outline as to how you arrived at this. (And then I can decide whether I know enough to debate you.)

If this is the old issue of how God can be omniscient and still not be responsible for our evil, then don't bother. That argument is not convincing (unless you have already decided that you don't like God or the concept of God).

Well many people used religion to explain scientific things they could not yet explain. All religions have something wrong morally or logically with them.

Buddhism at least teaches that you should question things.

Well many people used religion to explain scientific things they could not yet explain. All religions have something wrong morally or logically with them.

Christians assume God to omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving correct?

Correct.

Well then if that was the case why doesn't God simple create people whom have both free will and (by virtue of his omniscience ) will not be Hell bound?

God wants us to love him by free will. Christians are dependent on His forgiveness.

Everybody else, are dependent on their own good works, which unless they attain perfection, it is impossible.

For that matter could he not foreseen and prevent both the fall of Adam and Lucifer?

Could be in his plans. Or his sandbox. Plus, I think Angels are different beings never meant to have free will, but are capable of, but never meant.

We are capable and meant to have free will, but created for/to freely love God.

Doesn't God's absolute foreknowledge make the crucifixion a suicide?

Jesus came to died for our sins. As a sacrifice for our sins. Before Jesus, the jews (and all other religions) used to sacrifice the blood of animals as a redemption of their sins. Jesus is the ultimate final sacrifice, in which everyone who believes in him is perfectly forgiven from all sin forever.

Just asking.

Sure.. Though I'm 41 pages late. :D

-------------

I haven't done a bible study/research on it. But I think humans when we die, we go to a different place from Satan though. Hell is the absence of Christ. Or simply neverending thirst and darkness.

Whereas Satan & the anti-christ is meant for the pit of fire and brimstone.

Buddhism at least teaches that you should question things.


The Bible asks to Test all things in accordance to the Bible and the Holy Spirit. :) Helps alot ya. :D

Test against what? If you take a true unbiased critical look at the Bible it's a self contridictory peice of poorly written historical fiction.


The Bible asks to Test all things in accordance to the Bible and the Holy Spirit. :) Helps alot ya. :D

Both, kinda. I just say that people need to consider all the messages put together to build a true understanding of Jesus Christ.

Yep - they need to take a look at the "good" and the "bad" in order to see the whole picture. If they only allow themselves to listen to the feel-good messages and ignore the hateful ones, they will easily be deceived. How else do you think such characters as "Satan" or "the antichrist" would be able to deceive the whole world?

The belief in invisible cloud faries who grant your every wish and send you to a place of candycanes, carebears and lollypops in the sky is flawed.

BTW, please don't think I am singling out Christians, Jews or Muslims here. That previous statement is directed at very deistic religion.

You seem quite familiar with the Scriptures. Did you read it for yourself, or are you pulling examples out of a webpage? Actually, it doesn't make that much difference, I suppose, but you seem more knowledgeable about the Bible than what I thought the average Pagan is.

I've read it for myself. I do go back and reference certain things time and time again, so I'm more familiar with some passages than with others. This happens to be one of those passages I refer to whenever Christians accuse Pagans of human sacrifice. I don't feel that I'm necessarily more knowledgeable than most Pagans about the bible - especially since many Pagans used to be Christians. Also, learning about other religions is kind of a Pagan thing anyway - definitely not unusual.

As for Abraham and Isaac, it is perfectly true that God is dangerous, and sometimes unpredictable. I get the impression that lots of people seem to want a god that can be controlled or at least predicted.

How about a god who isn't a jealous, blood-thirsty, psychotic tyrant? Would that be asking too much? (Sorry - I don't mean to be offensive, but I can't read about the god of Abraham without stirring up a lot of anger against him.)

I would be the first to admit, though, that God does not always seem to match up to being good and right when judged by human understanding. But that is because human understanding is so little.

Sorry, but this sounds like a cop-out. I think most humans understand the basic concepts of right and wrong from the time we're about 3 years old. I don't buy the idea that we're just so inferior that we can't comprehend his reasons, so it must all remain a mystery. That sounds like authoritarian parents who tell their children not to ask questions and just do as they say, not as they do - right, wrong or otherwise.

The Leviticus example of every first-born being either killed or ransomed was also explained in the same book. It was both a reminder of how God 'purchased' them from slavery in Egypt, and how He had to do it (by taking the life of the firstborn Egyptians). Thus it served to remind the people of how God 'owned' them. You might find it all a bit repulsive, but perhaps that demonstrates that you are not seeing all the pros and cons.

Evil is still evil. Killing your firstborn in remembrance of evil times doesn't whitewash it. A god who would demand such a thing is clearly evil.

I agree with your first statement. Wrong for us. But not wrong for God, who sees life from a different perspective. He gave life. He gives us all the pleasures that we encounter in life. He is the creator. Thus he is perfectly right to take it back again. It is not wrong for him to take a life when it is 25 years old, or 95 years old (he decided how long the average lifespan is anyway). It would be wrong of him to unnecessarily punish a life that he created. But which one of us is in a position to decide what is fair for God to do and what isn't?

Any one of us who was given a rational mind?

Then you haven't heard of the ancient Celtic motto---might is right. Perhaps you haven't read up on their history????? They had gods for war. Practically all the old Pagans that I read about had gods of war. That means that these gods were to help them during times or war. Of course, that doesn't mean that they were ordered to wipe out other cultures. But the Celts, at one stage of their history anyway, made it a way of life to plunder other cultures. The Vikings were similar, not to mention all the Barbarian hordes that took Rome.

All barbarians were like that - but I don't believe they had a holy book telling them it was right and that their gods wanted them to destroy cultures that worshipped different gods. I think the "Big 3" are fairly unique in that regard.

I can't see which part of Scripture points that out. It looks like that is the way that you interpret it, which is your right, of course, just as it's my right to challenge you to provide some sort of reasonable explanation to support it.

I wish I knew what this remark was referring to, but in reply mode, my original post doesn't seem to be on this page (and yours isn't either). Memory doesn't serve me well these days - I'll have to see if I can go back and find your post so I'll know which of my remarks you were responding to here and address it separately.

I didn't realize that they contradicted each other at this point. And I still don't see how you can claim that they do. Perhaps you would like to explain. In Luke 24, it describes Jesus walking with Cleopas and his companion, but doesn't say that they were the first to see him. I had assumed Mary to be the first, because she was there at the garden, and Jesus told her that he hadn't even been up to see his father yet, and that he told her to tell the others. The fact that this is described in another gospel is not evidence of a clash between the gospels.

According to Luke 24, the two Marys had come to the sepulchre, along with Joanna and some other women, only to find the stone rolled away and the body gone. Two men in shining garments reminded them of what Jesus had said in Galilee about being risen on the third day following his crucifixion. The women went to the men and reported these things, but the men didn't believe them. Peter went to check it out for himself and found only the linen clothes that had been left behind. Two of the apostles went that same day to a village called Emmaus, where they ran into the risen Christ - or so Luke tells us. Where do you see anything there about Mary being the first to see him?

What an earth are you doing on NS at 6:30am???? Before work???? Don't you think you are addicted to NS (or something).
You don't have to answer this, but I am curious....what do you do for work?
Oh, and I'm still waiting for an answer to my other questions regarding your belief system.

What - me, addicted??? Of course not - I can quit any time I like. ;)

To answer your question, I'm an electrical engineer - how about you?

Bruarong - here is the statement you had responded to and I couldn't remember what you were referring to when I posted my reply to you:

"The bible story put the blame on the girls - as usual."

This seems self-evident to me. It was claimed that Lot neither perceived when the girls laid down or got up - in other words, he was passed out drunk. And yet they seemed to have taken advantage of him to the point where they were able to get pregnant, making it all their fault. I'm having a real difficult time believing that young virgin girls either would or could rape their father in this severely inebriated state and succeed in their goal of getting pregnant by him without him even being aware of what was going on. I mean, this is seriously unbelievable!

This is an answer to whomever posted that Athiest's post on God and ominipotence and whatnot.

These answers are NOT of my own but of a friend's. He knows his stuff in that he has taken theology and religion's course in college and is training to be a Catholic seminary. Enjoy :)

1) Omnipotence is impossible because God would, at a minimum, be
unable to limit his powers, e.g., make a stone he cannot lift; if he
could make such a stone, then his inability to lift it would defeat
his omnipotence;

The age old question of God and the rock. Some of what will be said
here will have implications for the further statements regarding the
powers of God, so I will refer to them after this rather than restate
myself.

First off, it is foolhardy to say that omnipotence is possible,
because the subject at hand is by nature outside the material
universe, for by the very notion that he is omnipotent and the creator
of said universe, He preceeds it, and thus cannot be contained with in
it. Therefore, the laws of the universe have no governing power over
its very creator. While it is true that such a thing as infinity is
impossible in our universe except in theory, that does not preclude
its existence outside of the universe, especially when one is dealing
with the non-material. After all if you argue that there is no God,
and are not suggesting that the universe created itself from nothing
(is its own creator), then you are arguing that the universe has
always existed, that is, it has no beggining (a negative, yet actual,
infinity).

Therefore, to say that omnipotence is impossible is a foolish statement.

Why is this importance? Because God is inifinite (has no begginning
or end), you cannot put the same constraints on Him that you and I
have. The answer to the question "Can God build a rock so heavy that
He cannot pick it up," is neither a simple yes or no.

God cannot create a rock so heavy that He cannot pick it up because
God has infinite time to create infinitely larger rocks which He can
progressively pick up. It's not a lack of power; it is the fact that
He has no time constraints, which furthers His omnipotence, not
deteriorates it.

2) God's omnipotence conflicts with his omniscience, because if God
knows everything that is going to happen in advance, he cannot do
anything in the present; he must simply watch the future unfold as
previously foreseen, because changing anything would falsify his prior
belief concerning the future;

More of those false time constraints. God's will exists outside of
the boundaries of time, so there is no past, present, or future for
Him, for these things require finite beginnings and end. God is not
on a path to anything, nor has He arrived anywhere. If you must,
consider it all one single moment, although this is only for the sake
of human understanding. However, God has exercised for eternity
everything that He has wished to exercise. Thus, His foreknowledge
does not hinder His action for they occur at the same time, which is
no time and yet all time.

3) God's omnipotence precludes him from having knowledge of any
sensations or emotions associated with weakness, e.g., fear,
frustration, despair, sickness, etc., and thus conflicts with him
omniscience;

Simple. Having all power also includes the ability to not use. In
fact, one is only truly ALL powerful if in fact He can choose not to
exercise said power, otherwise, his power would actually be limited.

4) God's omniscience precludes him from having knowledge of any
emotions associated with surprise or anticipation, and thus conflicts
with itself;

This is just silly. As a three (or four, if you include
time)-dimensional creature, I couldn't comprehend or understand a
seven-dimensional entity. I don't have the range that said entity
has. However, it has at least as many dimensions as I have, so it can
completely relate to those dimensions because it also has them. I.E.,
a higher plane of existence has all that a lower plane of existence
has, plus some. Therefore, if God is the superlative of all
existence, and also its creator, He can fully understand and "feel"
all that a lower life form can.

This is further a silly argument because you are acting like feelings
are more than biochemical responses to stimuli, which I find rather
awkward to do if you are denying supernatural existence. If emotions
are only the former, then it is even easier for God to comprehend
them.

5) God's omniscience conflicts with his disembodiedness, since a being
without a body could not know how to drive, swim, or perform any
activity associated with having a body;

I give more or less the same response for the previous question.

6) God's omniscience conflicts with his omnibenevolence, since a
morally perfect god could not have knowledge of feelings of hate,
lust, or envy, or cruelty, etc.

Hate, lust, envy etc. do not actually exist. This is Christian
theology. Only good exists. Evil is not real. Evil is only the
privation of good. God is all good, and all that God created was
good, so only good exists. Evil is merely its privation.

This argument is like saying that I have a table. One day, that table
is stolen and is no longer there. No, I am not a thief. I have never
stolen anything before. I don't have it in me to steal. However,
that does not preclude me experiencing the feelings of lost or
understanding the capability to steal. Likewise, although God does
not hate, lust, etc., He can still comprehend them as the lack of
something good.

7) God's omniscience and omnipotence conflict with his
omnibenevolence, since a god who could prevent evil would do so unless
he were unable to do so or unaware of the evil.

False. God does not cause evil, but God allows evil so that good may
come from it. Causing evil so that good may come from it would be a
violation of omnibenevolence. Disallowing the created to go against
that goodness however is itself a violation of omnibenevelonce,
because it is a violation against freedom. If God created the world
and then controlled it like a puppeteer so that it remained forever
good, his creatures would never be free, but slaves, which is an evil.
Since freedom is inherently good, God is inherently good for allowing
freedom, and then even MORE good for yet bringing goodness out of the
midst of our own evil actions.

This frequently happens with, say, fish - which spawn maybe hundreds of progeny at the same time. From what I've observed, it seldom happens with mammals, and especially not when there are just one or two offspring born at a time.

I have read about the father lion killing his cubs, under certain conditions. The mother ostrich leaves her eggs to their own fate. These observations have been explained in terms of survival. But this is precisely what separates humans from animals. We care for our weak and helpless. We respect an individial, not according to survival, but higher ideals of love, honour, and dignity. If we departed from this, we end up having a society like the one Marx wanted, who criticised societies based on Christianity because they devoted so much effort to caring for the sick and the disadvantaged. He thought our society should be more according to the survival of the fittest. Interestingly, we can see how the Nazis tried to put this into practice.



It's called survival - and I have no problem if someone must lie to survive - this happens all the time with humans, too. But life and death situations aside - how do animals lie and cheat?

Christianity says that it is never right to do wrong in order to do right. Witness the temptation of Jesus, when Satan offered him an easy way of winning the world. All Jesus had to do was to compromise, and bow down to Satan. But Jesus chose death on a cross, i.e., the hard way. In the same way, we are encouraged to be true in all our ways, even if it means facing death. There are more important things than survival.

I never said that animals lie and cheat. But when you look at their patterns of survival, and try to apply it to how you should live your own life, you might easily come to the conclusion that whatever helps you survive is the right thing to do, even if it puts you in a position of, say, Hitler. It could also be argued that all the greedy corporation managers that are making life unpleasant for the ordinary people are also just trying to survive. The terrorists are also 'just trying to survive'.



Marriage is a human construct that evolved to benefit our species - marital type relationships seldom occur in the animal kingdom. The animals work this out as best suits their own species and situations. So do humans - where's the conflict?

The Bible says that God hates divorce. Children appear to hate it too. I sure hated seeing my parents split up. It does a lot of damage. (of course there may be situations where it is better than the alternative) It made me very angry. But just looking at the way the animal kingdom works, you might come to the conclusion that it isn't so bad.



What is the point of anything? Isn't it simply to be? As God is reported to have said, I AM. There doesn't seem to be any other point, as far as I can see.

For many people, having no point to living is not far away from choosing not to live at all.

The Christian world view is filled with hope, and purpose. A most incredibly good reason to live, and to welcome each new day. Not only is it another day of walking with the Beloved, but it is also one step closer to heaven.


I haven't deliberately turned my back on it, but as I became an adult, life happened and I had to deal with it. I'd say that nature definitely took a back seat to raising children and earning a living. Though my children are now grown, I still have to make a living, so I'm not as free to spend time with nature as I'd like (working nearly 12 hours a day, 5 days a week doesn't really leave much time for anything else - even weekends are spent cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, washing, ironing and just generally getting ready for the work week ahead). If the weather permits, I like to take a walk at lunch time, but there isn't all that much in the way of nature in a business park (although I do occasionally see a rafter of wild turkeys).

Wow, and all this time I thought I was chatting with someone younger than I. Just goes to show, you shouldn't make assumptions.

I think you work too much. Survival is getting in the way of your religion. (You can take that with a grain of salt.)


I, on the other hand, see a direct correlation between the two - Jesus may have been sent to heal the people and point the way to God, but then he became the object of worship and, like Nehushtan, had to be destroyed. Oh yes, I also forgot to mention that a great, great,..., great grandmother of Jesus was named "Nehushta."

You can take it that way, but you have to carve out the parts that point out that Jesus was God. That's definitely making minced meat of the scriptures. As for one of the ancestors of Jesus having that name.......is that supposed to mean that Jesus was somehow not God? These little connections that you keep finding (albeit rather cleverly) do not make a convincing argument. That's like saying, the moon is yellow, the flowers are yellow too---must be made of the same stuff.



I should have bolded the words, "serpent's root," which, as I understand it, was a general reference to the bloodline of Jesse. If Jesse was a serpent, so was his offspring, and his offspring after him, and so on. It seems that Jesus descended from a long line of serpents. So how could he be anything other than a serpent himself?

Except that Ahaz (rather than his great-great-great-etc. grandaddy Jesse)was supposed to be the one to which this passage referred. I don't know why you think it refers to the general bloodline of Jesse. As I pointed out before, it can't have meant Jesus, because the Philistines had ceased to exist as a nation by Jesus' time. Are there any other references in the Bible that describes the line of Jesse as a serpent? If so, I may be more inclined to consider your claim. As it stands, a once off mention, used in a completely different context, is hardly a good argument.



The serpent has promised eternal life since the garden. Jesus said that if he had not come and spoken to "them," they would not have sin. Effectively, if you read this statement at face value, Jesus took credit for introducing sin to the world - making him the original serpent.

I have always taken this passage to mean that Jesus' coming revealed their own sin to them, rather then introducing it. This interpretation makes more sense in the light of other scriptures which show Jesus, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. When someone has sin in their lives, and doesn't know it, they are ignorant, and therefore cannot blamed. But when the light shines on them, and they see themselves as they really are, they have the opportunity to chose the right way or the wrong way. That is the role of Jesus. The light of the world.



On the other hand, if Jesus was the one who introduced sin to the world in the first place, wouldn't it make sense that he was the one who should pay the price for it? There is no other way this can make any sense at all.

I thought it was rather clear that sin entered the world because of the first Adam (explained in Romans), and consequently the separation from God, but that the second Adam (Jesus, the first to rise from the dead to the resurrected life) was the one who came to restored people back to God.


Oh, I almost forgot the best part. You know that the name "Lucifer" means "morning star", right? The last words of Jesus that are recorded in Revelation are as follows:

Revelation 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

This is quite a revelation indeed!

My dictionary tells me that Lucifer means 'bright star'. Whereas the NIV version says that Jesus describes himself as the 'bright Morning Star'. In both cases, the names are a reference to the glory. The addition of 'Morning' in Jesus' title may refer to him being the first. From the Christian perspective, both Jesus and Satan (at least originally) are glorious beings, so it is perfectly legit for both of them to be described as stars, much in the same way that Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson are both stars, but not the same person. There appears to be no conflict here.

Both, kinda. I just say that people need to consider all the messages put together to build a true understanding of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you would like to point out the parts that you don't agree with. This could be interesting.

Are you familiar with the Gnostic King of Heaven vs. King of Earth? If not I'll explain that 1st.

Yes please. But I do ask that you keep it succinct and point out exactly why it makes the Christian God look silly.

The belief in invisible cloud faries who grant your every wish and send you to a place of candycanes, carebears and lollypops in the sky is flawed.

BTW, please don't think I am singling out Christians, Jews or Muslims here. That previous statement is directed at very deistic religion.

Do you see why it is flawed? And what makes your 'religion' better?

I've read it for myself. I do go back and reference certain things time and time again, so I'm more familiar with some passages than with others. This happens to be one of those passages I refer to whenever Christians accuse Pagans of human sacrifice. I don't feel that I'm necessarily more knowledgeable than most Pagans about the bible - especially since many Pagans used to be Christians. Also, learning about other religions is kind of a Pagan thing anyway - definitely not unusual.


But I was under the impression that some (at least) of the old Pagans were into human sacrifice. Do you think this incorrect?



How about a god who isn't a jealous, blood-thirsty, psychotic tyrant? Would that be asking too much? (Sorry - I don't mean to be offensive, but I can't read about the god of Abraham without stirring up a lot of anger against him.)


I tend to get more offended when people call me names. As for calling God names, I suppose He is big enough to handle it.
As for God appearing that way to you, I think I can understand. But I have also had the experience with certain people that upon first impression, I got them all wrong, and concluded that they were arrogant, stupid, etc. Only when I got to know them better did I realize that my first impressions were totally wrong. My point is that sometimes love doesn't look anything like love, until you get closer to it.

As for God being jealous, that is the one description you have used that I go along with. He is recorded as describing himself as jealous. Where jealousy becomes evil is where it is for evil motives. It can be good, however, in the case where the jealous one wants what is best for the subject. For example, God gets jealous when the people run after Pagan gods, because he knows that it will lead to the destruction of the people. I want a God like that.


Sorry, but this sounds like a cop-out. I think most humans understand the basic concepts of right and wrong from the time we're about 3 years old. I don't buy the idea that we're just so inferior that we can't comprehend his reasons, so it must all remain a mystery. That sounds like authoritarian parents who tell their children not to ask questions and just do as they say, not as they do - right, wrong or otherwise.

Perhaps it does, I don't deny it. But what am I to do? I see it as the truth. We really do have a much smaller intelligence than the Creator. If there was another way around this 'weakness' in Christian reasoning, believe me, I would use it. Your point that it looks like a weakness does not really bother me. I know for myself how many times I have made a judgement on some issue, and only discovered (sometimes much later) just how wrong I was. For example, I used to get really cross with my mother for crying all the time when my father left us (eight children). I thought she should just get over it. Little self-righteous prig of a 10 year old (me) giving my poor mother a lecture on getting over something that happened years ago. Who cares that he runs around with other women???
Now that I am thirty years old, married, and getting to know both my father and my mother, I can see how foolish and lacking in understanding I was. Now I am more likely to say that I realize how little I understand. Back then I thought I knew it all. Poor mother.
My point is that we don't have to rush into conclusions about God, when it looks like he is a shabby parent. But it is a good thing to question our own understanding.



Evil is still evil. Killing your firstborn in remembrance of evil times doesn't whitewash it. A god who would demand such a thing is clearly evil.

I thought you knew the Bible. The firstborn children were not killed. They were redeemed by the death of an animal. Would you consider killing an animal evil? Of course, it depends on the motive (in my view, anyway). Perhaps one could argue that the highest honour an animal life could have would be to redeem that of a human life. That certainly fits with the old Hebrew way of thought.



Any one of us who was given a rational mind?

Our rational minds can get very irrational at times. Just look at you and me.



All barbarians were like that - but I don't believe they had a holy book telling them it was right and that their gods wanted them to destroy cultures that worshipped different gods. I think the "Big 3" are fairly unique in that regard.

But the nature of Paganism is not to have a holy book, therefore, it is unfair of you to compare the presence of a holy book against a lack of one.

You can only compare the belief systems. Pagans thought it was ok to destroy other cultures--in fact, that it was necessary for survival. That certainly does not make them superior to the Big 3. What is the difference between a belief system that allows you to destroy other cultures (because you need to) and one that commands that other cultures be destroyed, IF, in the long run, the result is the same? It doesn't help that poor little kid running from the big man with the big sword with blood all over it.


According to Luke 24, the two Marys had come to the sepulchre, along with Joanna and some other women, only to find the stone rolled away and the body gone. Two men in shining garments reminded them of what Jesus had said in Galilee about being risen on the third day following his crucifixion. The women went to the men and reported these things, but the men didn't believe them. Peter went to check it out for himself and found only the linen clothes that had been left behind. Two of the apostles went that same day to a village called Emmaus, where they ran into the risen Christ - or so Luke tells us. Where do you see anything there about Mary being the first to see him?

It was explained in the gospel of Mark, which includes both Mary being the first to see him, and then his appearance to the the other two chaps. Actually, your question prompted me to have a more in-depth look at the four different accounts. Quite an interesting read. There appears to be conflicts on first reading. But a closer look suggests that the writers focussed on different parts of the story. What we have is something of a jigsaw puzzle. The question of whether it all can be fitted together without changing the accounts needs to be settled. I believe I have settled it for myself, but I won't describe it as being easy, and I have no way of knowing if I was being objective enough.



What - me, addicted??? Of course not - I can quit any time I like. ;)

To answer your question, I'm an electrical engineer - how about you?

Good for you. My wife sometimes gets cross at me for spending too much time on NS, and not enough giving her hugs and kisses. (that indicates how much I enjoy the debating on NS)

Electrical engineer. Cool. Then perhaps you could explain for me what is the difference between volts and amps in idiot language. (I keep getting them confused.)
As for me, I am a scientist. I play around with bacterial genes and their biochemical pathways.

Bruarong - here is the statement you had responded to and I couldn't remember what you were referring to when I posted my reply to you:

"The bible story put the blame on the girls - as usual."

This seems self-evident to me. It was claimed that Lot neither perceived when the girls laid down or got up - in other words, he was passed out drunk. And yet they seemed to have taken advantage of him to the point where they were able to get pregnant, making it all their fault. I'm having a real difficult time believing that young virgin girls either would or could rape their father in this severely inebriated state and succeed in their goal of getting pregnant by him without him even being aware of what was going on. I mean, this is seriously unbelievable!

I think the Bible puts the blame squarely on humanity in general. To say that it singles out the women suggests that perhaps you are not being objective about it. The classic example is the Genesis account which describes Eve as being the first to sin. But then in Romans, it's all about how Adam was the one through whom sin entered the world--no mention of Eve. Plus, both Adam and Eve got their punishment, not just Eve.

As for the daughters of Lot, once again, I feel that you and I are not really in a good position to decide what was possible and what wasn't. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. You are in danger of deciding that you know better than the one who wrote the account. If he was making it up, why on earth would he have invented something that is so unlikely and then expect everyone to believe it? The very least you could do, in the absence of proof, is reserve your judgement, and take a position of 'unlikely, but not impossible'.

I think it fair to say that there are more bad guys in the Bible than bad girls, even though there would have to have been roughly equal numbers of both sexes in the world at that time. The Bible was written in a culture that valued men higher than women, and this is reflected in its pages. But I see that as a result of sin entering the world, and not as God intended it to be.
In the Gospels, there are plenty of examples of Jesus championing the cause of women. Not because they are women, but because he went about caring for every downtrodden individual, regardless of their sex. In this way, he demonstrates the heart of God.

Gnostic believe that the Bible describes not one but 2 Gods, The God of the Old Testement, Rex Mundi and Jesus of the New Testement. Rex Mundi is evil, vain and cruel while Jesus is gentle and loving. I think this captures the spirit of the Bible quite well, and goes quite far to explain the Old Testiment violence. I don't believe this either as I believe the Bible is a fairy story.Yes please. But I do ask that you keep it succinct and point out exactly why it makes the Christian God look silly.

But I was under the impression that some (at least) of the old Pagans were into human sacrifice. Do you think this incorrect?
That's correct. Life feeds on life, and one part of life giving its life for another was considered a noble thing. Some pagan religions had a king who gave up his life for the life of the earth, to ensure food for the whole tribe. In this way, he becomes sacred (the sacrifice) or 'made whole', restoring what was lost from the earth by the people consuming other life-forms to survive.

Gnostic believe that the Bible describes not one but 2 Gods, The God of the Old Testement, Rex Mundi and Jesus of the New Testement. Rex Mundi is evil, vain and cruel while Jesus is gentle and loving. I think this captures the spirit of the Bible quite well, and goes quite far to explain the Old Testiment violence. I don't believe this either as I believe the Bible is a fairy story.

Aha, I see your point. And I can see how it relieves one from having to go through the mental challenge of trying to see how the love of Jesus has to be matched with the justice of Jehovah.

But then I thought that the letters and the Gospel of the Apostle John pretty much showed up Gnosticism. Statements like the first verse....in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Not that I really understand all that much about Gnosticism.)
So it looks like we Christians have to get back to the task of reconciling the 'bloody' God of the old Testament with 'loving' one of the new. But actually, what could be more 'bloody' then sending your own son to die in the worst way possible. And what could be less 'gentle' then telling everyone that they are Hell bound unless they are prepared to hate their own life? It was said of Jesus (again in the first chapter of John) that he was full of grace (love, acceptance, forgiveness, mercy) and truth (we have all sinned and fallen a long way from God's standards). A good long look at the NT does not leave me with the impression of Jesus meek and mild, but someone terrible, a comsuming fire for those who are determined enough to go their own way, and a loving brother to those who recognise their true state of helplessness and brokenness. Actually, that isn't too far away from my impression of the God of the OT. Sure, I don't understand everything in either the OT or the NT. But I have personally experienced some things in my own life that have given me good reasons to accept the Bible account (even without understanding everything).

That's correct. Life feeds on life, and one part of life giving its life for another was considered a noble thing. Some pagan religions had a king who gave up his life for the life of the earth, to ensure food for the whole tribe. In this way, he becomes sacred (the sacrifice) or 'made whole', restoring what was lost from the earth by the people consuming other life-forms to survive.

Hmmm, interesting. Sounds like the story of Jesus, that got jumbled up a bit since it wasn't written down but passed on by word of mouth. Now, wouldn't that be interesting.

Here, you have shown a rather nice aspect of human sacrifice. That certainly would have been a noble king to do such a thing. But wasn't there a darker side too. Like sacrificing virgins and children and stuff like that? What I want to know, is if this was invented by the Christians to make the Pagans look bad, or if the Pagans themselves really admit to this sort of past.

Understand there are other Gnostic Gospels, Thomas, Jude and Mary Magdelane. Those Gospels and parts of the 4 canon Gospels and God only know what else was removed from the canon at the Nicean Council. Ironicly the oldest known Gospel is that of Thomas, and it paints a slightly different picture of Christ.

I don't buy into Gnostic Christianity any more than any other flavor. They idea of anybody else even God's son paying for my sins is abhorent to me.

Are you a Bible literalist? I think Christianity can work but only if the Bible is accepted as metaphor and not fact.

What did you expirence that brings the Bible account to life for you?


Aha, I see your point. And I can see how it relieves one from having to go through the mental challenge of trying to see how the love of Jesus has to be matched with the justice of Jehovah.

But then I thought that the letters and the Gospel of the Apostle John pretty much showed up Gnosticism. Statements like the first verse....in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (Not that I really understand all that much about Gnosticism.)
So it looks like we Christians have to get back to the task of reconciling the 'bloody' God of the old Testament with 'loving' one of the new. But actually, what could be more 'bloody' then sending your own son to die in the worst way possible. And what could be less 'gentle' then telling everyone that they are Hell bound unless they are prepared to hate their own life? It was said of Jesus (again in the first chapter of John) that he was full of grace (love, acceptance, forgiveness, mercy) and truth (we have all sinned and fallen a long way from God's standards). A good long look at the NT does not leave me with the impression of Jesus meek and mild, but someone terrible, a comsuming fire for those who are determined enough to go their own way, and a loving brother to those who recognise their true state of helplessness and brokenness. Actually, that isn't too far away from my impression of the God of the OT. Sure, I don't understand everything in either the OT or the NT. But I have personally experienced some things in my own life that have given me good reasons to accept the Bible account (even without understanding everything).

Depends on what group of Pagans. Aztecs, Moche, and Baal worshipwe were pretty bloody so were some of the Celts. Romans, Greeks and Egyptians were not much on human sacrifice (but it is not unknown)


Hmmm, interesting. Sounds like the story of Jesus, that got jumbled up a bit since it wasn't written down but passed on by word of mouth. Now, wouldn't that be interesting.

Here, you have shown a rather nice aspect of human sacrifice. That certainly would have been a noble king to do such a thing. But wasn't there a darker side too. Like sacrificing virgins and children and stuff like that? What I want to know, is if this was invented by the Christians to make the Pagans look bad, or if the Pagans themselves really admit to this sort of past.

Understand there are other Gnostic Gospels, Thomas, Jude and Mary Magdelane. Those Gospels and parts of the 4 canon Gospels and God only know what else was removed from the canon at the Nicean Council. Ironicly the oldest known Gospel is that of Thomas, and it paints a slightly different picture of Christ.

These I have read about (although not having read them for myself, I don't have much to say about them). However, if they were removed from the canon (not so much removed as never included, if I have things right), perhaps it was with good reason. They appeared to be wildely different from the more authentic accounts of Jesus.
After all, it would make sense that the best way to attack a religion that relied so heavily on books was to write another book that differed from the first books, but had its origins hidden, so as to cause confusion. I guess it had a limited amount of success (to the point that some people today are still asking why they weren't included in the canon). But the fact that the council was fairly unanimous in most of their decisions makes it sound like it was obvious which ones were fake, and they there were aware of that sort of strategy.

I mean, anyone could write a book. Looking back from our relatively ignorant point of view, it could seem like those chaps at Nicea just picked the books that suited them. But a closer look shows that these chaps were up to their ears in heresys. Of course they had to be careful. From what I have read, they erred on the side of caution, since it took more than one council to accept some of the letters of the NT, and were rather reluctant to include the book of James.

I don't buy into Gnostic Christianity any more than any other flavor. They idea of anybody else even God's son paying for my sins is abhorent to me.

Are you a Bible literalist? I think Christianity can work but only if the Bible is accepted as metaphor and not fact.

What did you expirence that brings the Bible account to life for you?

What is a Bible literalist? I tend to believe in miracles unless I have proof against them. Does that make me a literalist? I also accept that not everything Jesus said was supposed to be taken literally (unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood), unless one considers that he was talking about the spiritual equivalent, and that he considered the spiritual equivalent more real than the physical one.

My approach to reading the Bible to use the simple unsophisticated unlearned approach first. When that doesn't work (i.e., when it doesn't match up with the whole message of the Bible), I then tend to dig a bit deeper, to look for the cultural context, and then try to interpret everything in terms of the overall message of the Bible. I tend not to rely on the theologians and the preacher too much, though I want to always be open to hearing someone else's viewpoint, and weigh it and see if it has any merit.

Obviously, the way in which one regards the Bible has a lot to do with one's experience of God. I was once a skeptic about pretty much anything Christian. But when things happen in your life, you can sometimes find yourself becoming more open to more possibilities. For me, it was growing more openminded about the possibility of there really being some truth to this Jesus thing. That process took several years, to a point where I realized I had to do something about the challenge that Jesus puts forward about following Him. I'm sorry if that sounds vague, but it's hard to put a process of several years into a couple of short paragraphs. And I don't want to bore you. The challenge that Jesus puts forward, about personally proving His promises, leaves little room for compromise. As you yourself once said, being a Christian is all or nothing. It doesn't mean making the Bible the master of your life (and then trying to do everything that you find written in it) but making Jesus (the living spirit) the master. It is a deep plunge, and I can easily see why so few people can accept it.
On the other side of that deliberate decision, I have seen the promises of Jesus comming true. That is the sort of experience I am referring to. Personally proving again and again the truth that is found in the Bible. Little wonder, then that I can easily accept that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead as fact.

Don't be fooled the canon was picked by Constantine. That's why Thomas didn't make it in, Thomas' Gospel among other things showed Jesus to be agains a stratified organised church rather he want small groups to meet in peoples homes. What we are doing know is more akin to what Jesus had in mind (according to Thomas) that the Roman Church.



These I have read about (although not having read them for myself, I don't have much to say about them). However, if they were removed from the canon (not so much removed as never included, if I have things right), perhaps it was with good reason. They appeared to be wildely different from the more authentic accounts of Jesus.
After all, it would make sense that the best way to attack a religion that relied so heavily on books was to write another book that differed from the first books, but had its origins hidden, so as to cause confusion. I guess it had a limited amount of success (to the point that some people today are still asking why they weren't included in the canon). But the fact that the council was fairly unanimous in most of their decisions makes it sound like it was obvious which ones were fake, and they there were aware of that sort of strategy.

I mean, anyone could write a book. Looking back from our relatively ignorant point of view, it could seem like those chaps at Nicea just picked the books that suited them. But a closer look shows that these chaps were up to their ears in heresys. Of course they had to be careful. From what I have read, they erred on the side of caution, since it took more than one council to accept some of the letters of the NT, and were rather reluctant to include the book of James.

I have read about the father lion killing his cubs, under certain conditions. The mother ostrich leaves her eggs to their own fate. These observations have been explained in terms of survival. But this is precisely what separates humans from animals. We care for our weak and helpless. We respect an individial, not according to survival, but higher ideals of love, honour, and dignity. If we departed from this, we end up having a society like the one Marx wanted, who criticised societies based on Christianity because they devoted so much effort to caring for the sick and the disadvantaged. He thought our society should be more according to the survival of the fittest. Interestingly, we can see how the Nazis tried to put this into practice.

There is indeed a great deal of variety in the animal kingdom and, if you search hard enough, you can pretty much find examples of any type of behavior you're looking for. I'm looking more at the norms, and I'm looking at what seems to work out best for each species. I'm not aware of male lions ever killing their own cubs - although a young male will kill all the young cubs that were sired by another male when he takes over a pride, ensuring that only the strongest genes are the ones to be passed on. Since I'm not a lion trying to survive in the wilds of Africa, this doesn't really say much of anything to me about how I should behave as a human being living in a civilized nation, though it does tell me something about nature and the Divine.

Christianity says that it is never right to do wrong in order to do right. Witness the temptation of Jesus, when Satan offered him an easy way of winning the world. All Jesus had to do was to compromise, and bow down to Satan. But Jesus chose death on a cross, i.e., the hard way. In the same way, we are encouraged to be true in all our ways, even if it means facing death. There are more important things than survival.

Considering that Jesus lied to his own brothers, I'll take that with a grain of salt:

John 7:1-10 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him. Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

I never said that animals lie and cheat. But when you look at their patterns of survival, and try to apply it to how you should live your own life, you might easily come to the conclusion that whatever helps you survive is the right thing to do, even if it puts you in a position of, say, Hitler. It could also be argued that all the greedy corporation managers that are making life unpleasant for the ordinary people are also just trying to survive. The terrorists are also 'just trying to survive'.

If what Hitler did was a survival tactic, it didn't work out so well, did it? I guess I can scratch that off my list. ;) But seriously, if you look at how a certain behavior works out in the long run, whether it be the behavior of fascist dictators, Islamic extremists or greedy corporate managers, maybe you'll gain some insight about how our own moral codes have evolved over time, and why such behaviors have become unacceptable.

The Bible says that God hates divorce. Children appear to hate it too. I sure hated seeing my parents split up. It does a lot of damage. (of course there may be situations where it is better than the alternative) It made me very angry. But just looking at the way the animal kingdom works, you might come to the conclusion that it isn't so bad.

When I was young, I married the wrong man - to put it very mildly. I don't even want to go into what a horrible human being he turned out to be and how much I suffered in that marriage, both physically and mentally. I left him when I was 7 months pregnant with my first child (my parents had to come and rescue me from another state, and they brought a shotgun with them - if that tells you anything about the situation), and I divorced him a little over a year later. I did this to protect my child and myself - the alternative was unthinkable. I'm not saying divorce is good - but sometimes it's necessary. In my case, it was literally a matter of survival.

For many people, having no point to living is not far away from choosing not to live at all.

I suppose that's why they feel they have to invent a reason. For me, the joy of living and learning is enough.

The Christian world view is filled with hope, and purpose. A most incredibly good reason to live, and to welcome each new day. Not only is it another day of walking with the Beloved, but it is also one step closer to heaven.

And then what?

Wow, and all this time I thought I was chatting with someone younger than I. Just goes to show, you shouldn't make assumptions.

You know what they say - when you make assumptions, you make an ASS out of U and, uh, MPTIONS. ;) But I've always been young at heart, so I guess your assumptions were partially correct. :)

I think you work too much. Survival is getting in the way of your religion. (You can take that with a grain of salt.)

You're right about this. I just don't know how to get off the merry-go-round, I guess. I supposed we could sell everything we own in California and move to the Ozarks, where we could live fairly comfortably on the proceeds and on my husband's postal retirement (which would be next to nothing if he retired right now) - but that doesn't seem like much of an option for us right now. Our grandchildren are all on the West coast, and if we want to see them grow up, this is where we'll have to stay - which means we continue to work until we drop, basically. At least I enjoy what I do (although, unfortunately, I can't really say the same for my husband).

You can take it that way, but you have to carve out the parts that point out that Jesus was God. That's definitely making minced meat of the scriptures. As for one of the ancestors of Jesus having that name.......is that supposed to mean that Jesus was somehow not God? These little connections that you keep finding (albeit rather cleverly) do not make a convincing argument. That's like saying, the moon is yellow, the flowers are yellow too---must be made of the same stuff.

Well, we're all made out of star stuff, so I guess that theory makes a certain amount of sense. ;)

The problem is, I don't believe Jesus was God (any more than any of the rest of us are, that is), though he may certainly have presented himself as such at times. The unnamed "King of Babylon" in Isaiah 14, and the "Prince of Tyrus" and "King of Tyrus" in Ezekiel, 28 all did the same thing, but it seems their fate was similar to the fate of Jesus. What does that tell you? The Old Testament was adamant that God was not a man and that there was no savior beside him - never had been, never would be. The New Testament contradicts this promise - so which one is lying?

By the way, Nehushta was the mother of Jeconiah (aka, Coniah, Jehoiachin and Jechonias) - you know - the one whose lineage was cursed by God so that no descendant of his could rule on the throne of David - which meant that no blood descendant of his could be the Messiah. And yet, Matthew included Jechonias in his list of begats. It was all good until that point, with the proper connection to King David through both Solomon and Asa - and then, bam! All of a sudden, there is Jechonias and his cursed lineage! If you read between the lines, you will find him in Luke's genealogy too (when you consider that Salathiel and Zorobabel were direct blood descendants of Jechonias, according to Matthew, and they both appear in Luke's genealogy as well). So if you consider Luke's genealogy to be Mary's bloodline to King David, Jechonias appears to be there as well. I don't know about you, but I find that interesting.

Except that Ahaz (rather than his great-great-great-etc. grandaddy Jesse)was supposed to be the one to which this passage referred.
I don't know why you think it refers to the general bloodline of Jesse. As I pointed out before, it can't have meant Jesus, because the Philistines had ceased to exist as a nation by Jesus' time. Are there any other references in the Bible that describes the line of Jesse as a serpent? If so, I may be more inclined to consider your claim. As it stands, a once off mention, used in a completely different context, is hardly a good argument.

See the earlier references to the bloodline of Jesse in Isaiah 11, particularly verses 1 and 10. It doesn't refer specifically to the serpent's root there, but I think you'll see they refer to the same bloodline. If this was the only reference to a serpent in connection with Jesus, I'd be inclined to agree with you - but it isn't.

I have always taken this passage to mean that Jesus' coming revealed their own sin to them, rather then introducing it. This interpretation makes more sense in the light of other scriptures which show Jesus, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. When someone has sin in their lives, and doesn't know it, they are ignorant, and therefore cannot blamed. But when the light shines on them, and they see themselves as they really are, they have the opportunity to chose the right way or the wrong way. That is the role of Jesus. The light of the world.

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

The light is what told Adam and Eve they were naked. They were naked before, but just didn't know it. Once they had light, they knew they were naked and tried to hide it, which made it all the more apparent that they had seen the light. It's the same old story, just told a different way.

I thought it was rather clear that sin entered the world because of the first Adam (explained in Romans), and consequently the separation from God, but that the second Adam (Jesus, the first to rise from the dead to the resurrected life) was the one who came to restored people back to God.

Nope. Same old story, same old heel-biter, same old promises. There truly is nothing new under the sun.

My dictionary tells me that Lucifer means 'bright star'. Whereas the NIV version says that Jesus describes himself as the 'bright Morning Star'. In both cases, the names are a reference to the glory. The addition of 'Morning' in Jesus' title may refer to him being the first.

From the Blue Letter Bible site:

Lucifer = "light-bearer"

1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer

a) of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)

2) (TWOT) 'Helel' describing the king of Babylon

Hmmmm...sounds like the light of the world, to me.

From the Christian perspective, both Jesus and Satan (at least originally) are glorious beings, so it is perfectly legit for both of them to be described as stars, much in the same way that Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson are both stars, but not the same person. There appears to be no conflict here.

On the other hand, John Cougar and John Mellencamp are both stars - and oh yeah, they are the same star - just different names. From the clues I've gleaned reading between the biblical lines, I have no reason to think "the light of this world" is anyone other than our original serpent. If their goals are the same (to be worshipped as God) and their tactics are the same (to give knowledge of good and evil to man, along with the promise of eternal life), then for all intents and purposes, they are the same.

Jesus always said that he and his father are one - but I think perhaps we've made some erroneous assumptions about who his father is.

Hmmm, interesting. Sounds like the story of Jesus, that got jumbled up a bit since it wasn't written down but passed on by word of mouth. Now, wouldn't that be interesting.


It would be interesting... but, remmeber, some of those 'pagan' religions were celebrating their self-immolating myrtyrs long before Jesus is supposed to have lived...

*BUMP*
Gotta get to this one soon. Lotsa posts.

*BUMP*
Gotta get to this one soon. Lotsa posts.

*ahem* <bump> :D

Jesus as Satan would explain the Inquisition



There is indeed a great deal of variety in the animal kingdom and, if you search hard enough, you can pretty much find examples of any type of behavior you're looking for. I'm looking more at the norms, and I'm looking at what seems to work out best for each species. I'm not aware of male lions ever killing their own cubs - although a young male will kill all the young cubs that were sired by another male when he takes over a pride, ensuring that only the strongest genes are the ones to be passed on. Since I'm not a lion trying to survive in the wilds of Africa, this doesn't really say much of anything to me about how I should behave as a human being living in a civilized nation, though it does tell me something about nature and the Divine.



Considering that Jesus lied to his own brothers, I'll take that with a grain of salt:

John 7:1-10 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him. Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.



If what Hitler did was a survival tactic, it didn't work out so well, did it? I guess I can scratch that off my list. ;) But seriously, if you look at how a certain behavior works out in the long run, whether it be the behavior of fascist dictators, Islamic extremists or greedy corporate managers, maybe you'll gain some insight about how our own moral codes have evolved over time, and why such behaviors have become unacceptable.



When I was young, I married the wrong man - to put it very mildly. I don't even want to go into what a horrible human being he turned out to be and how much I suffered in that marriage, both physically and mentally. I left him when I was 7 months pregnant with my first child (my parents had to come and rescue me from another state, and they brought a shotgun with them - if that tells you anything about the situation), and I divorced him a little over a year later. I did this to protect my child and myself - the alternative was unthinkable. I'm not saying divorce is good - but sometimes it's necessary. In my case, it was literally a matter of survival.



I suppose that's why they feel they have to invent a reason. For me, the joy of living and learning is enough.



And then what?



You know what they say - when you make assumptions, you make an ASS out of U and, uh, MPTIONS. ;) But I've always been young at heart, so I guess your assumptions were partially correct. :)



You're right about this. I just don't know how to get off the merry-go-round, I guess. I supposed we could sell everything we own in California and move to the Ozarks, where we could live fairly comfortably on the proceeds and on my husband's postal retirement (which would be next to nothing if he retired right now) - but that doesn't seem like much of an option for us right now. Our grandchildren are all on the West coast, and if we want to see them grow up, this is where we'll have to stay - which means we continue to work until we drop, basically. At least I enjoy what I do (although, unfortunately, I can't really say the same for my husband).



Well, we're all made out of star stuff, so I guess that theory makes a certain amount of sense. ;)

The problem is, I don't believe Jesus was God (any more than any of the rest of us are, that is), though he may certainly have presented himself as such at times. The unnamed "King of Babylon" in Isaiah 14, and the "Prince of Tyrus" and "King of Tyrus" in Ezekiel, 28 all did the same thing, but it seems their fate was similar to the fate of Jesus. What does that tell you? The Old Testament was adamant that God was not a man and that there was no savior beside him - never had been, never would be. The New Testament contradicts this promise - so which one is lying?

By the way, Nehushta was the mother of Jeconiah (aka, Coniah, Jehoiachin and Jechonias) - you know - the one whose lineage was cursed by God so that no descendant of his could rule on the throne of David - which meant that no blood descendant of his could be the Messiah. And yet, Matthew included Jechonias in his list of begats. It was all good until that point, with the proper connection to King David through both Solomon and Asa - and then, bam! All of a sudden, there is Jechonias and his cursed lineage! If you read between the lines, you will find him in Luke's genealogy too (when you consider that Salathiel and Zorobabel were direct blood descendants of Jechonias, according to Matthew, and they both appear in Luke's genealogy as well). So if you consider Luke's genealogy to be Mary's bloodline to King David, Jechonias appears to be there as well. I don't know about you, but I find that interesting.



See the earlier references to the bloodline of Jesse in Isaiah 11, particularly verses 1 and 10. It doesn't refer specifically to the serpent's root there, but I think you'll see they refer to the same bloodline. If this was the only reference to a serpent in connection with Jesus, I'd be inclined to agree with you - but it isn't.



2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

The light is what told Adam and Eve they were naked. They were naked before, but just didn't know it. Once they had light, they knew they were naked and tried to hide it, which made it all the more apparent that they had seen the light. It's the same old story, just told a different way.



Nope. Same old story, same old heel-biter, same old promises. There truly is nothing new under the sun.



From the Blue Letter Bible site:

Lucifer = "light-bearer"

1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer

a) of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)

2) (TWOT) 'Helel' describing the king of Babylon

Hmmmm...sounds like the light of the world, to me.



On the other hand, John Cougar and John Mellencamp are both stars - and oh yeah, they are the same star - just different names. From the clues I've gleaned reading between the biblical lines, I have no reason to think "the light of this world" is anyone other than our original serpent. If their goals are the same (to be worshipped as God) and their tactics are the same (to give knowledge of good and evil to man, along with the promise of eternal life), then for all intents and purposes, they are the same.

Jesus always said that he and his father are one - but I think perhaps we've made some erroneous assumptions about who his father is.

Christians assume God to omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving correct?

Well then if that was the case why doesn't God simple create people whom have both free will and (by virtue of his omniscience ) will not be Hell bound?

For that matter could he not foreseen and prevent both the fall of Adam and Lucifer?

Doesn't God's absolute foreknowledge make the crucifixion a suicide?

Just asking.

His infinate wisdom is the basis of His choices. Much of what He does is beyond our comprehension (since He has all knowledge and we know little). He choses to give us free agency because that will ultimately make us happiest.

Your last statement: Almost. It's more that he let it happen because he knew that it would be for the best. (i.e. he attoned for our sins in part through dying on the cross)

I have no reason to think "the light of this world" is anyone other than our original serpent.

You misunderstand. Lucifer was very light and glorious, yet he fell. The light of the world is Jesus Christ because he gives light unto the world. Satan does not.

Christians assume God to omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving correct?

Well then if that was the case why doesn't God simple create people whom have both free will and (by virtue of his omniscience ) will not be Hell bound?

For that matter could he not foreseen and prevent both the fall of Adam and Lucifer?

Doesn't God's absolute foreknowledge make the crucifixion a suicide?

Just asking.
As I said in one of the posts (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9441043&postcount=2026) that killed the Question for Athiests topic ( * adds that one to list of Frags... ^^ * ), the problem here lies with definition. Using infinites in definitions leads to contradictions and invalidities, as shown by the mathematical "proof" that 1 = 2. But that is neither a fault of God nor the reason with which we analyse; it's just Semantics, and it's an issue of semantics that should be very easy to deal with.

Would saying "God is as powerful, seeing and benevolent as it is possible to be" sound any better? I'd argue yes, and it would certainly get around a lot of the logical fallacies that get thrown at the Christians without sacrificing any of their pride in their interdimensional overlord.

Anyway, is it suicide if you know without doubt that you're going to survive? 0_o

But I was under the impression that some (at least) of the old Pagans were into human sacrifice. Do you think this incorrect?

Yes, the ancient Pagans did do this. I'm just saying that anyone who worships the god of Abraham can't point a finger at the Pagans without pointing four back at themselves.

I also wanted to point out that the Pagans of today probably resemble the ancient Pagans about as much as the Christians of today resemble the ancient Jews - for whatever it's worth.

As for God being jealous, that is the one description you have used that I go along with. He is recorded as describing himself as jealous. Where jealousy becomes evil is where it is for evil motives. It can be good, however, in the case where the jealous one wants what is best for the subject. For example, God gets jealous when the people run after Pagan gods, because he knows that it will lead to the destruction of the people. I want a God like that.

But destruction at whose hands?

Perhaps it does, I don't deny it. But what am I to do? I see it as the truth. We really do have a much smaller intelligence than the Creator. If there was another way around this 'weakness' in Christian reasoning, believe me, I would use it. Your point that it looks like a weakness does not really bother me. I know for myself how many times I have made a judgement on some issue, and only discovered (sometimes much later) just how wrong I was. For example, I used to get really cross with my mother for crying all the time when my father left us (eight children). I thought she should just get over it. Little self-righteous prig of a 10 year old (me) giving my poor mother a lecture on getting over something that happened years ago. Who cares that he runs around with other women???

On the other hand, maybe the self-righteous little 10-year old prig was right. There is a period where it is reasonable to mourn over a lost love - but then one really must leave the past behind and move forward, or risk being stuck forever in an unhappy past. You were right to want your mother to be happy again. It's unfortunate she chose otherwise.

I thought you knew the Bible. The firstborn children were not killed. They were redeemed by the death of an animal. Would you consider killing an animal evil? Of course, it depends on the motive (in my view, anyway). Perhaps one could argue that the highest honour an animal life could have would be to redeem that of a human life. That certainly fits with the old Hebrew way of thought.

Perhaps you might want to go back and review our conversation? You will note that I already brought up the issue of the redemption of firstborns, but then I also pointed out the contradiction where it says that all things - of man or beast - that are devoted to the Lord must be put to death (see Leviticus 27:28,29). And yes - I do consider the killing of an animal evil if it is done for any other reason than for food or in self-defense.

Our rational minds can get very irrational at times. Just look at you and me.

I represent that remark. ;)

But the nature of Paganism is not to have a holy book, therefore, it is unfair of you to compare the presence of a holy book against a lack of one.

Perhaps, but if Christians are going to push their holy book on the rest of us, claiming that it is a manual for how to live a good life and we all need to follow it, then they really shouldn't be surprised if it gets thrown right back at them. You can't throw a Pagan holy book back at me because there isn't one to throw, and even if there was, Pagans don't have that tendency to push anything on anybody.

You can only compare the belief systems. Pagans thought it was ok to destroy other cultures--in fact, that it was necessary for survival. That certainly does not make them superior to the Big 3. What is the difference between a belief system that allows you to destroy other cultures (because you need to) and one that commands that other cultures be destroyed, IF, in the long run, the result is the same? It doesn't help that poor little kid running from the big man with the big sword with blood all over it.

I can't tell for sure, but I think we seem to agree that it is not okay to destroy other cultures. Self defense is one thing, but I still don't see how it is ever necessary to destroy an entire culture, even in that case. I think all cultures were a bit more barbaric in ancient times, regardless of what gods they worshipped, and I don't think any of us can claim superiority in that regard. But I think the difference between Pagans and Christians is that Christians tend to excuse their barbaric past, saying that God made them do it. If that is the case, then I see no need to worship such a god.

It was explained in the gospel of Mark, which includes both Mary being the first to see him, and then his appearance to the the other two chaps. Actually, your question prompted me to have a more in-depth look at the four different accounts. Quite an interesting read. There appears to be conflicts on first reading. But a closer look suggests that the writers focussed on different parts of the story. What we have is something of a jigsaw puzzle. The question of whether it all can be fitted together without changing the accounts needs to be settled. I believe I have settled it for myself, but I won't describe it as being easy, and I have no way of knowing if I was being objective enough.

In any case, I think you were trying to show how the New Testament occasionally throws us women a bone (or, more appropriately, allows us to eat the crumbs that fall from the master's table?). Let's just say that I'm less than impressed, if this is all you can find.

Electrical engineer. Cool. Then perhaps you could explain for me what is the difference between volts and amps in idiot language. (I keep getting them confused.)

Okay - I'll give it a shot. The simplest way to explain it is this: voltage (measured in volts) is analogous to water pressure, and current (measured in amperes, or amps for short) is analogous to water flow. Voltage is the measure of electrical potential in a circuit, or how effectively the electrons can potentially be pushed through a circuit. For example, a 9-volt battery has a potential difference of 9V between its terminals. But that potential is useless until you complete the circuit (i.e., add some resistance between the terminals that is significantly lower than the infinite resistance of air, for example). When you complete the circuit, then you will have current flow that is equal to the voltage divided by the resistance in that circuit - the lower the resistance, the higher the current; the higher the resistance, the lower the current. Amperage (I) is the measurement of the current: I = V/R.

A larger wire has less resistance to electron flow than a smaller wire - just as a larger pipe has less resistance to water flow than a smaller pipe, and therefore you will have a greater flow of water if you use a larger pipe. If the water pressure (voltage) is too great for the pipe you are using, the pipe will eventually burst. The same thing happens with a wire - if you use too small a wire gauge for your application, then I (i.e., V/R) will be too great and the wire will open like a fuse.

I'm not sure if that helped at all, but there it is.

As for me, I am a scientist. I play around with bacterial genes and their biochemical pathways.

That sounds like a fascinating job! Medical? Environmental? Other? Is this for the purpose of gene therapy, by any chance? Can you give more information on the specifics of what you are studying, or is it all hush-hush?

Jesus as Satan would explain the Inquisition

Yes, it explains the Inquisitions, and a lot of other things as well (e.g., the Crusades; the Witch Hunts; the destruction of native cultures wherever they are encountered by Christians; Christian proselytizing, etc.). Good point.

You misunderstand. Lucifer was very light and glorious, yet he fell. The light of the world is Jesus Christ because he gives light unto the world. Satan does not.


I think you intended this for me, since I was the one who made the comment about "the Light of this world" being none other than our original serpent. "Light" is used to mean "knowledge," is it not? Who is reported to have originally led us to eat from the tree of knowledge? Was it not the serpent? Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is beside the point - who led us to knowledge? Is it not the same one who said, "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin"?

Jesus, that angel of light and the light of this world, is none other than the original serpent in the Garden of Eden (read also Ezekiel 28:1-19).

I have read about the father lion killing his cubs, under certain conditions. The mother ostrich leaves her eggs to their own fate. These observations have been explained in terms of survival. But this is precisely what separates humans from animals. That depends entirely on culture. Eskmo tribes, among others, were known to leave their infants to die in times of famine so as to not have another mouth to feed.

We care for our weak and helpless. We respect an individial, not according to survival, but higher ideals of love, honour, and dignity. If we departed from this, we end up having a society like the one Marx wanted, who criticised societies based on Christianity because they devoted so much effort to caring for the sick and the disadvantaged. He thought our society should be more according to the survival of the fittest. Well that's an outright lie. Marx criticized religion for many things but caring for their fellow man wasn't one of them. Sounds much closer to libertarianism to me.

The Bible says that God hates divorce. Children appear to hate it too. I sure hated seeing my parents split up. It does a lot of damage. (of course there may be situations where it is better than the alternative) It made me very angry. But just looking at the way the animal kingdom works, you might come to the conclusion that it isn't so bad. Uh, in the animal kingdom divorce doesn't even equate. Either they form lifetime units in which case their is no divorce or they don't to begin with and thus are never really a couple.


For many people, having no point to living is not far away from choosing not to live at all. One can make their own purpose.

The Christian world view is filled with hope, and purpose. It says that most of humanity is going to eternally suffer. Hope and purpose my ass. A most incredibly good reason to live, and to welcome each new day. Actually it gives good reason to say Christ save me and then die to get in on that sweet heaven gig. Not only is it another day of walking with the Beloved, but it is also one step closer to heaven. And if you die, you get a free ticket to heaven, heaven is good, thereforeone should be reckless so they die when they are a christian.



I thought it was rather clear that sin entered the world because of the first Adam (explained in Romans), and consequently the separation from God, but that the second Adam (Jesus, the first to rise from the dead to the resurrected life) was the one who came to restored people back to God.
Eh... He did a poor job of it then seeing as how the vast majority of the world has always been beliving something else. I would expect more from the son of God.

It says that most of humanity is going to eternally suffer. Hope and purpose my ass.

Good point. *kicks self for missing that one*

believe what you want but at least i know that i am going to heaven because Jesus died on the cross for my sins. i dont want to be part of this blasphame.

believe what you want...
Okay, I will, thanks.

Ah.. but Religion is baised on Faith... and faith is most definitly not Logical.
to attempt to build a logical and infallable institution on something that isn't logical is like building your house on sand. Sure it'll look pretty... until it falls.

What? No. That is not right. Look, evidence itself is causes you to have a measure of faith. You could deny something is true and not belief it even though it has been "proven" to you. Look, you need faith for everything. Faith is the foundation of all things. Do you have faith that tomorow will come? Can you prove it? I doubt it. What you speak of is not faith. It is faith unfounded. In other words, it is faith that has no basis at all, as in you just accepting something without any thought.

believe what you want but at least i know that i am going to heaven because Jesus died on the cross for my sins. i dont want to be part of this blasphame.
This is what we call Selfish Christianity. It is incomplete. Faith without actual humanitarian compassion is worthless, and even God will see that. Matthew 7 verses 21-23; check them out.

What? No. That is not right. Look, evidence itself is causes you to have a measure of faith. You could deny something is true and not belief it even though it has been "proven" to you. Look, you need faith for everything. Faith is the foundation of all things. Do you have faith that tomorow will come? Can you prove it? I doubt it. What you speak of is not faith. It is faith unfounded. In other words, it is faith that has no basis at all, as in you just accepting something without any thought.
Sure I can prove it. Just give me twenty four hours.

Sure I can prove it. Just give me twenty four hours.

LMAO good answer


but yknow, this boils down to a simple question : what's greater, faith or logic?
of course, those who believe in faith will say faith is greater.
and those who believe in logic will say logic is better.
ultimately it boils down to personal preference.
and, who's to say what tastes better, apples or oranges?


i think, the question here is, not how well we can defend our arguments, but how well we can accept other peoples' beliefs and live side by side with them.

after all, 'truth' is just an opinion.

of course, that's just what i think is best. other people will have other ideas.

carry on :p

LMAO good answer


but yknow, this boils down to a simple question : what's greater, faith or logic?
of course, those who believe in faith will say faith is greater.
and those who believe in logic will say logic is better.
ultimately it boils down to personal preference.
and, who's to say what tastes better, apples or oranges?


i think, the question here is, not how well we can defend our arguments, but how well we can accept other peoples' beliefs and live side by side with them.

after all, 'truth' is just an opinion.

of course, that's just what i think is best. other people will have other ideas.

carry on :p
There is, however, a theory (based in observation) that this Faith can be explained Logically, even if that to which the faith alludes cannot be so precisely. The "Feeling" for God can be explained in rational terms, even if God can't.

Systems Theory, or the theory of Complex Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system), could suggest that the idea of the emotional (and possibly irrational) calling to "God" is a result of the system of Life that is created through the interaction of living things.

I don't know whether that's Theist or Atheist, but observational evidence does exist for this sort of behaviour on some scales. It isn't a major jump in logic to proceed from there to hinting that mankind may be a cell in some higher consciousness that is very rationally explainable. 0o

believe what you want but at least i know that i am going to heaven because Jesus died on the cross for my sins. i dont want to be part of this blasphame.
You dont have to ... all we ask is not to have your BELIEF forced on us

There is, however, a theory (based in observation) that this Faith can be explained Logically, even if that to which the faith alludes cannot be so precisely. The "Feeling" for God can be explained in rational terms, even if God can't.

Systems Theory, or the theory of Complex Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system), could suggest that the idea of the emotional (and possibly irrational) calling to "God" is a result of the system of Life that is created through the interaction of living things.

I don't know whether that's Theist or Atheist, but observational evidence does exist for this sort of behaviour on some scales. It isn't a major jump in logic to proceed from there to hinting that mankind may be a cell in some higher consciousness that is very rationally explainable. 0o

the faith can be logically explained through, say, psychology, yes. or, that is what i gather from your explanation, and if that's what you mean, i agree completely. there is the added advantage of comfort, for believers, that some/most atheists dont have, which makes belief very attractive to several people.

of course, the calling to god is a result of the whole mess called 'life' we're in, lol. but, i guess, that statement hints at the idea that the concept-that-is-G/god(s)(ess)(esses) is only a human construct, nothing else.

which, i believe it is. my belief is along nietzsche's idea, that God is dead for society and we no longer need the concept to survive. that's the reason i dont believe in god : cuaz its a block to my will to power.

and its not a major jump in logic to say that, maybe humanity's just a part of this bigger (non?)metaphysical machine, but it is a slight slip in logic, since there is no proof to support this statement.

but, rationality and logic are, again, completely subjective.

screw that haha, i believe that, for myself at least, there is no need to justify my beliefs to others. i only distill what i believe is 'truth' in my own mind, without normally turning to others to influence my decisions.


meh. im such an existentialist. EXI's IN DA HOUSE SAY RAH! haha :D

But Christians and the Bible say exactly that he is ALL KNOWING AND ALL POWERFUL and that he is 3 beings at once. Not that he is as powerful as can be but ALL POWERFUL that is the exact discription.



As I said in one of the posts (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9441043&postcount=2026) that killed the Question for Athiests topic ( * adds that one to list of Frags... ^^ * ), the problem here lies with definition. Using infinites in definitions leads to contradictions and invalidities, as shown by the mathematical "proof" that 1 = 2. But that is neither a fault of God nor the reason with which we analyse; it's just Semantics, and it's an issue of semantics that should be very easy to deal with.

Would saying "God is as powerful, seeing and benevolent as it is possible to be" sound any better? I'd argue yes, and it would certainly get around a lot of the logical fallacies that get thrown at the Christians without sacrificing any of their pride in their interdimensional overlord.

Anyway, is it suicide if you know without doubt that you're going to survive? 0_o

What is this "Christian"?

But Christians and the Bible say exactly that he is ALL KNOWING AND ALL POWERFUL and that he is 3 beings at once. Not that he is as powerful as can be but ALL POWERFUL that is the exact discription.
true and i know this cus at my school if you do summat wrong you have to read the bible 5 times out lound and get every word wright but if u dont then you have to do it 5 more times and it is espacialy harsh for the ppl that cnt read well :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

true and i know this cus at my school if you do summat wrong you have to read the bible 5 times out lound and get every word wright but if u dont then you have to do it 5 more times and it is espacialy harsh for the ppl that cnt read well :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Maybe rather then reading the bible they should teach you how to type/write and spell .

Here is a question. You people believe in creation, where humanity started with two people. However, in the bible, it says incest is a sin. Therefore, your beliefs contradicts itself, and all together, discredits creationism.

Besides. What ever happened to Adam's first wife?

Here is a question. You people believe in creation, where humanity started with two people. However, in the bible, it says incest is a sin. Therefore, your beliefs contradicts itself, and all together, discredits creationism.

Besides. What ever happened to Adam's first wife?
I believe there is a reference to “other people” in there (will try to look it up)

Here is a question. You people believe in creation, where humanity started with two people. However, in the bible, it says incest is a sin. Therefore, your beliefs contradicts itself, and all together, discredits creationism.

Besides. What ever happened to Adam's first wife?

She's non-canonical.

Some people believe, due to the conflict of Creation stories that there was an earlier bride (Lilith), who assumed co-dominance with Adam, and was exiled for Eden for trying to be man's equal.

Further, it is believed that she is the mother of all demons (the Lilim), and other stories about making babies cry...

Some Midrash texts also imply a second 'bride' between Lilith and Eve - that Adam saw 'created', and was disgusted by all the gross biology stuff... which is why (they argue) Adam sleeps through the creation of Eve.

Faith is unnecessary and irrelevant [to me]. I don’t need faith , I’m just betting the odds. When I drive over a bridge on the expressway. I’ve no faith that it will not cave in under me, the odds just favour it not collapsing. If the odds didn’t favour me, I wouldn’t drive over it.
As far as the earth being here tomorrow or not; faith is irrelevant as I’ve no control (at this time) over the sun going nova or a giant asteroid hitting us or whatever.
Belief in the supernatural is a psychological crutch. It may be a necessary crutch or not [to others]. I choose not to use it. [If I chose faith, I'd be lieing to myself as well as others]. Don’t penalize me for my decision.

and its not a major jump in logic to say that, maybe humanity's just a part of this bigger (non?)metaphysical machine, but it is a slight slip in logic, since there is no proof to support this statement.

but, rationality and logic are, again, completely subjective.
Logic isn't really subjective. Contradiction is universally accepted as irrational. The only way of getting around that is Doublethink; contradicting yourself and making yourself believe that what you've said isn't a contradiction. It's not the logic that's subjective; you're just not exercising it.

Plus, while there may not be Proof to support that statement in particular, there is a reasonable amount of observational evidence to suggest the ones that it is based on; that Complex Systems result in Emergence and that evolution can be treated as a Complex system. Even Richard Dawkins backs me up on that one (though I think I might need to reread The Blind Watchmaker...).

God is simply the Emergent Consciousness of Evolution, and that manoevring of logic from the aforementioned observation-supported theories isn't a slip.

By the way, such a God wouldn't be an intelligent designer, so you're clear on that front. It's more like the way humans create body cells than the way a builder creates a house.


Oh, and:
Here is a question. You people believe in creation, where humanity started with two people. However, in the bible, it says incest is a sin. Therefore, your beliefs contradicts itself, and all together, discredits creationism.

Besides. What ever happened to Adam's first wife?
Your first paragraph isn't a question. Your second has nothing to do with the statements you made following "Here is a question". So... Yeah. <_<;

And I still say that Adam and Eve is rhetoric. True in the sense of its message, but fiction in the sense of its historical accuracy.

And I still say that Adam and Eve is rhetoric. True in the sense of its message, but fiction in the sense of its historical accuracy.

See, this I can respect... 'spirtually true', not necessarily 'scientifically true'.

Faith is unnecessary and irrelevant. I don’t need faith , I’m just betting the odds. When I drive over a bridge on the expressway. I’ve no faith that it will not cave in under me, the odds just favour it not collapsing. If the odds didn’t favour me, I wouldn’t drive over it.
As far as the earth being here tomorrow or not; faith is irrelevant as I’ve no control (at this time) over the sun going nova or a giant asteroid hitting us or whatever.
Belief in the supernatural is a psychological crutch. It may be a necessary crutch or not. I choose not to use it. Don’t penalize me for my decision.

Unless you mean 'religous faith', I don't think you really understand what faith is. As you atleast have faith in your own opinion.

The problem is that you can't live your life without putting faith in atleast something, even if it is proof. As at some point even proof becomes unfounded because you take it right down to it's base and it's roots lay in suspositions and theories.
For instance you seem to have faith in the possibility of our sun going nova; only I imagine you will of never been presented with any empirical (first hand) evidence of such an event. You've probably only read or maybe even just told about one.
Scientific theories about reality are framed in such a way that they can be tested against reality. No matter how many tests are performed, they can never be conclusively proved. So testability means in practice that they must be falsifiable.

Science is there to help you know what is false. Faith is there so you can either stand by the Truth or just find your own truths.

See, this I can respect... 'spirtually true', not necessarily 'scientifically true'.
Why thank you! To be honest though, that's a rather uncommon idea; not for religious or spiritual reasons but for the simple reason of the conflicting human thought processes. Artists look at meaning, see that it works and accept everything about the statement without further analysis, because they think they have "what matters". Scientists look at form, see that it doesn't work and reject everything about the statement without further analysis because they think they have "what matters". Hence the bipartitianism, which is probably unnecessary.

There is indeed a great deal of variety in the animal kingdom and, if you search hard enough, you can pretty much find examples of any type of behavior you're looking for. I'm looking more at the norms, and I'm looking at what seems to work out best for each species. I'm not aware of male lions ever killing their own cubs - although a young male will kill all the young cubs that were sired by another male when he takes over a pride, ensuring that only the strongest genes are the ones to be passed on. Since I'm not a lion trying to survive in the wilds of Africa, this doesn't really say much of anything to me about how I should behave as a human being living in a civilized nation, though it does tell me something about nature and the Divine.


Indeed, the variety appears to be great. One wonders how is one to arrive at the 'norm'. I think Darwin summed it up quite well. 'survival of the fittest'. And if that is how you chose to live your life, you will make a great mess of it (according to how I see life anyway). Your friendships will be formed out of the motive of 'what can I get out of it?'. The lives of your children will be worth a lot more than the life of the next one, although you may kill your child if that helps your immediate survival. Alternatively, you may give your life trying to save your child. But you will have to decide, since there doesn't appear to be a 'norm' in nature. You will probably mate with the 'fittest' male that you can find, and leave him the moment he becomes sick or too weak to catch his own food (of course there are exceptions in nature, but we are just looking at the norm). I could go on and on, Pterodonia. I just don't see it as a good idea to live one's life according to the 'survival of the fittest', at least as we see it in nature.
But then, you may like to argue that humans have a more sophisticated method of survival. We have learned that love and compassion and care for our weak are more likely to ensure our own survival. Although, for many humans alive today, e.g, in China, where the government rules according to an ideal that leaves the mentally sick and the very poor without any (or very little) form of help, even though there is the money to do something about them. Actually, the Christian position is that survival is not the issue, but a relationship with God. It just so happens that loving God and loving your neighbour seems to also fit in with helping both the individual and the human race survive. The fact that there exists such a difference between cultures on this issue means that religion makes a big difference to the disadvantaged. Would you rather be a mentally sick orphan in a country like China, or Germany?



Considering that Jesus lied to his own brothers, I'll take that with a grain of salt:

John 7:1-10 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him. Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.


I don't see how Jesus way lying. The use of the word 'yet' simply means (to me) that at the time that his brothers were preparing to go to the feast, he was not ready. He wanted to go a little later, although for obvious reasons he didn't want his brothers broadcasting this. The reason.....some people were looking out for him, in order to kill him. Perhaps they were watching all the roads. For him to arrive publically would have placed his life in danger. So he had to arrive late, and secretly. He was perfectly honest to say that he did not want to go with his brothers.


If what Hitler did was a survival tactic, it didn't work out so well, did it? I guess I can scratch that off my list. ;) But seriously, if you look at how a certain behavior works out in the long run, whether it be the behavior of fascist dictators, Islamic extremists or greedy corporate managers, maybe you'll gain some insight about how our own moral codes have evolved over time, and why such behaviors have become unacceptable.

According to your method, though, we needed people like Hitler to learn how not to survive. That is rather an expensive lesson. I don't think it would go down well with the Jews, or anybody else that lost grandfathers and great-uncles (me, for example) fighting in a stupid bloody war because some fool thought it would be better for the survival of the human race.



When I was young, I married the wrong man - to put it very mildly. I don't even want to go into what a horrible human being he turned out to be and how much I suffered in that marriage, both physically and mentally. I left him when I was 7 months pregnant with my first child (my parents had to come and rescue me from another state, and they brought a shotgun with them - if that tells you anything about the situation), and I divorced him a little over a year later. I did this to protect my child and myself - the alternative was unthinkable. I'm not saying divorce is good - but sometimes it's necessary. In my case, it was literally a matter of survival.


Yeah, harsh. I agree that divorce is not the worst alternative.



I suppose that's why they feel they have to invent a reason. For me, the joy of living and learning is enough.


That would get a bit thin, wouldn't it, when the chips are down, and life itself looks more like a curse than a blessing. I mean, if you are sick of life, what is the point of learning. If you have lost your joy, how do you get it back again. Lift yourself up by your hair?


And then what?


Well, when I get to heaven, I'm going to find out. But I've got this huge expectation that it is going to be better than anything I can dream up right now.


You know what they say - when you make assumptions, you make an ASS out of U and, uh, MPTIONS. ;) But I've always been young at heart, so I guess your assumptions were partially correct. :)


At least I hope you can take my posts without feeling like I have disrespected you. My mother always taught me to have a healthy respect for my elders, more respect the older they are. I never did find out her rational for this. But nowadays, I reckon it is the better way to raise children.
Furthermore, you have managed posts well enough for me to be completely oblivious to your age. Well done.


You're right about this. I just don't know how to get off the merry-go-round, I guess. I supposed we could sell everything we own in California and move to the Ozarks, where we could live fairly comfortably on the proceeds and on my husband's postal retirement (which would be next to nothing if he retired right now) - but that doesn't seem like much of an option for us right now. Our grandchildren are all on the West coast, and if we want to see them grow up, this is where we'll have to stay - which means we continue to work until we drop, basically. At least I enjoy what I do (although, unfortunately, I can't really say the same for my husband).

Grandchildren.......yeah, I'm still getting over it. Say, what are your plans for retirement? What could you do with your life, after being so busy?



Well, we're all made out of star stuff, so I guess that theory makes a certain amount of sense. ;)

The problem is, I don't believe Jesus was God (any more than any of the rest of us are, that is), though he may certainly have presented himself as such at times. The unnamed "King of Babylon" in Isaiah 14, and the "Prince of Tyrus" and "King of Tyrus" in Ezekiel, 28 all did the same thing, but it seems their fate was similar to the fate of Jesus. What does that tell you? The Old Testament was adamant that God was not a man and that there was no savior beside him - never had been, never would be. The New Testament contradicts this promise - so which one is lying?


I don't see how the NT contradicts the old (in this point, anyway). The introduction of Jesus in the NT explains how he is God, as do many of the references in Isaiah. The OT references to God not being a man were in the context of Him not thinking along the same selfish narrowminded lines that an ordinary man would. Jesus, in dying for the sins of the whole world, demonstrates that He too was motivated by something other than selfishness.

Anyone can claim to be God. Perhaps those princes and kings were more likely to do so than you or I today. I have no doubt that one day you and I will die like everybody else. Jesus was no different (in that he too died). But the claim of the scriptures was his resurrection. That puts him in a different category to those old kings and princes.



By the way, Nehushta was the mother of Jeconiah (aka, Coniah, Jehoiachin and Jechonias) - you know - the one whose lineage was cursed by God so that no descendant of his could rule on the throne of David - which meant that no blood descendant of his could be the Messiah. And yet, Matthew included Jechonias in his list of begats. It was all good until that point, with the proper connection to King David through both Solomon and Asa - and then, bam! All of a sudden, there is Jechonias and his cursed lineage! If you read between the lines, you will find him in Luke's genealogy too (when you consider that Salathiel and Zorobabel were direct blood descendants of Jechonias, according to Matthew, and they both appear in Luke's genealogy as well). So if you consider Luke's genealogy to be Mary's bloodline to King David, Jechonias appears to be there as well. I don't know about you, but I find that interesting.


Well, I can't say if you are getting mixed up with all those old names (rather easy, I suppose, considering how many times the same name was used for different people), or if you are getting mixed up between whose lineage was being cursed. Your first reference to the curse was about a king called Ahaz who was a descendent of Nehushta. And now you appear to be naming Jechonias, the son of Nehushta, as the one who had his lineage cursed.


See the earlier references to the bloodline of Jesse in Isaiah 11, particularly verses 1 and 10. It doesn't refer specifically to the serpent's root there, but I think you'll see they refer to the same bloodline. If this was the only reference to a serpent in connection with Jesus, I'd be inclined to agree with you - but it isn't.

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

The light is what told Adam and Eve they were naked. They were naked before, but just didn't know it. Once they had light, they knew they were naked and tried to hide it, which made it all the more apparent that they had seen the light. It's the same old story, just told a different way.


The NIV puts it as Satan 'masquerading' an Angel of Light. This is what we would expect, since he is the master of deception. He does so in order to draw people away from the light. Jesus, on the other hand, is said to be the Light of the world. Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness because they had sin in their lives, and the approach of God (the light) meant that their sin became obvious to them. The close proximity of Satan, however, would have had no such affect on Adam and Eve, as they ate the fruit.



From the Blue Letter Bible site:

Lucifer = "light-bearer"

1) shining one, morning star, Lucifer

a) of the king of Babylon and Satan (fig.)

2) (TWOT) 'Helel' describing the king of Babylon

Hmmmm...sounds like the light of the world, to me.



On the other hand, John Cougar and John Mellencamp are both stars - and oh yeah, they are the same star - just different names. From the clues I've gleaned reading between the biblical lines, I have no reason to think "the light of this world" is anyone other than our original serpent. If their goals are the same (to be worshipped as God) and their tactics are the same (to give knowledge of good and evil to man, along with the promise of eternal life), then for all intents and purposes, they are the same.

Jesus always said that he and his father are one - but I think perhaps we've made some erroneous assumptions about who his father is .

And so far, your claim that Jesus and Satan are the same person seems to be based on your reading of the Bible, and yet you yourself would have to admit that there is many claims in the Bible that you don't accept. How about some consistency? You seem to be saying that there is more truth to be believed by 'reading between the lines' than there is in the main (and rather repeated) messages of the books of the Bible.

And perhaps you would like to suggest who the Heavenly father was that Jesus was referring to, if it wasn't the one who knows that numbers of hairs on our heads.

It would be interesting... but, remmeber, some of those 'pagan' religions were celebrating their self-immolating myrtyrs long before Jesus is supposed to have lived...

I'm definitely interested in learning about some of those. Do you have the time?

Christianity has no proof of any claims it makes. It tells of some events that occured...and some that didn't (Noah's ark, adam and eve) Even when it tells of a historical event that occured, it puts a lot of religious claims that have no proof at all. I'm sorry, the Bible should be put in the fiction section. I consider myself to be agnostic (I believe in a higher power, a god, I believe in a form of evil) but I'm not gonig to follow a book that tries to answer all supernatural questions with claims that aren't true. By the way...before you call me liberal I must tell you that I am Conservative. I think fundamentalist Christians are a very stubborn people.

Watch the movie Constantine. It's cool.
why not read the comic books instead? sorry i'm a geek.

Christianity has no proof of any claims it makes. It tells of some events that occured...and some that didn't (Noah's ark, adam and eve) Even when it tells of a historical event that occured, it puts a lot of religious claims that have no proof at all. I'm sorry, the Bible should be put in the fiction section. I consider myself to be agnostic (I believe in a higher power, a god, I believe in a form of evil) but I'm not gonig to follow a book that tries to answer all supernatural questions with claims that aren't true. By the way...before you call me liberal I must tell you that I am Conservative. I think fundamentalist Christians are a very stubborn people.
Incidentally (I use that word far too much) this is a perfect example of the point I just made about 4 posts ago. Since there's a flaw with the form, the meaning is valueless to the "Classicist". No doubt it'll be matched by a "Romanticist" in about 3 posts' time, too.

Ya know what... faith in anything is less than logical. The Christian faith in God is less than logical. That's why it's called faith. Heck, absolute faith in anything is illogical. Humans have failings, animals do their own thing, houses crumble, bridges fall, money fluctuates, etc. To have faith in something, anything in itself is faulty logic. But everyone does it. While we live our lives, we find ourselves building our lives on a certain belief/faith in something. It's not something we always say we are believing in or having faith in. What people call god is not limited to the notion of the supernatural, heavenly, and/or spiritual. More people in this world has their faith in the economic system, money basically. Why do you think the Finance and Economic type explanations for people's behavior seems to be the most feasible? Because, the belief is there that money dictates the behavior of people, regardless of what the claims are. To put up a fairly popular example, see Bush. The majority of the nation's population, perhaps in the world, believe that Bush is in Iraq for oil, aka money, etc. However, there can be many other explanations to this war on Iraq... there's the stated purpose(s)... Religious Crusade... a disease that causes maddness... a calculated strike against a potential rival for power... but of these statements... according to your point of view and perhaps even what you truly believe is the moving force in this world and the nature of that moving force. One of these statements seem more true than others and unless you were Bush himself... or those controlling Bush (another thing up for debate)... there is really no way to find out cause even if he did tell you what goes on in his mind, people will believe it or disbelieve it depending on what construct people put themselves in.

Omniscience is enough to destroy the god myth as it negates any possibility of free will. If god knows the future, then all decisions are pre-ordained. In fact, if god is omniscient, then it has no free will either.

[QUOTE=Unspeakable]Christians assume God to omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving correct?

I believe that omnipresent should be in that group, i. e. the power to be present in all times and all places. I am not too sure that all loving quite fits. For one, omniamorous sounds strange and I doubt that he/she/it demostrates too much love, at least as I understand the term. Certainly, one essential tenet of Christianity is suppose to be 'to love one's fellow man' but one doesn't see to much of that either.

Lucifer whose name means 'maker of light' has gotten a raw deal. I think that he/she/it (angels have no gender) just attempted to expand human knowledge a bit. I guess God was not too interested in education.
;)

Yes, the ancient Pagans did do this. I'm just saying that anyone who worships the god of Abraham can't point a finger at the Pagans without pointing four back at themselves.

I also wanted to point out that the Pagans of today probably resemble the ancient Pagans about as much as the Christians of today resemble the ancient Jews - for whatever it's worth.


Well, I suppose there remains a difference between the incident between Abraham and Isaac and God, and that of the ancient Pagans, for whom human sacrifice was an institution. Sure, Christians should be careful about pointing the finger anyway. It's quite an ugly look.



But destruction at whose hands?


Well, that is interesting. The Bible says that the destruction was at the hands of God. He ordered the destruction of the Amalekites, for example. He destroyed nearly all of the Jews (Babylonian captivity) at one point. And yet, the Bible clearly says that, in each case, the people were warned beforehand that destruction was on its way, unless they changed their actions. They were not to worship Pagan gods, because this apparently led to practices that were disgusting. That would mean that the responsibility of the destruction was then in the hands of the Jews (in the case of their own destruction) and also in the hands of the Amalekites (in the case of their destruction). So the destruction was indeed at the hands of God, but the responsibility for the destruction goes to the people who insisted on going their own way (i.e. rebellion against God).


On the other hand, maybe the self-righteous little 10-year old prig was right. There is a period where it is reasonable to mourn over a lost love - but then one really must leave the past behind and move forward, or risk being stuck forever in an unhappy past. You were right to want your mother to be happy again. It's unfortunate she chose otherwise.


Of course I wanted my mother to be happy. She wanted it too. But she loved her husband. She just didn't love him so long as he loved her back. She had a much deeper love than that. She had plenty of opportunities to marry other men. But she turned them all down, because she believed that she made a vow before God to love that man (my father), and with God's help she loves him today still. She still gets sad at times, of course. But she had become the most wonderful loving woman that I have ever met. Of course I am biased. But I deeply respect her for demonstrating what real love means, rather than this thing we humans commonly have called infatuation, or attraction. She has what I call tough love. Love hurts. And she chose to love, even though she had plenty of reasons to hate him. I try to follow her example, and love my dad too. I reckon that is what Jesus would have done.


Perhaps you might want to go back and review our conversation? You will note that I already brought up the issue of the redemption of firstborns, but then I also pointed out the contradiction where it says that all things - of man or beast - that are devoted to the Lord must be put to death (see Leviticus 27:28,29). And yes - I do consider the killing of an animal evil if it is done for any other reason than for food or in self-defense.


Food. Food for the rich? Food for those who don't need it? At any rate, you would have to allow, then, that since the Hebrews considered the death of an animal for a sacrifice as more important than death for food, that it was hardly evil of them to do so, since their motives were good (or at least better than the motive for food, from their point of view).


Perhaps, but if Christians are going to push their holy book on the rest of us, claiming that it is a manual for how to live a good life and we all need to follow it, then they really shouldn't be surprised if it gets thrown right back at them. You can't throw a Pagan holy book back at me because there isn't one to throw, and even if there was, Pagans don't have that tendency to push anything on anybody.

Some people pushing the Bible on you doesn't mean that we all do. Indeed, here we are in a thread that is claiming that Christianity is based on flaws. Relax. I'm not trying to convert you. That is between you and God.
I do enjoy attempting to defend Christianity (and often hope that I'm not doing it's public image even more damage).



I can't tell for sure, but I think we seem to agree that it is not okay to destroy other cultures. Self defense is one thing, but I still don't see how it is ever necessary to destroy an entire culture, even in that case. I think all cultures were a bit more barbaric in ancient times, regardless of what gods they worshipped, and I don't think any of us can claim superiority in that regard. But I think the difference between Pagans and Christians is that Christians tend to excuse their barbaric past, saying that God made them do it. If that is the case, then I see no need to worship such a god.


Like I pointed out before, when a culture is warned by God to change their direction, and they refuse, they can only blame themeselves. It's not like we are in a world where we have no consequences for our actions. In defense of the Jews, they were apparently trying to obey God. It's not like they believed in destroying other cultures for monetary gain.



In any case, I think you were trying to show how the New Testament occasionally throws us women a bone (or, more appropriately, allows us to eat the crumbs that fall from the master's table?). Let's just say that I'm less than impressed, if this is all you can find.


how about, 'Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church, and gave his life for her.' Would that impress you? Do you have an equivalent message coming from the 'norm' in nature?


Okay - I'll give it a shot.

I'm not sure if that helped at all, but there it is.

Actually, I think it has helped. Thanks for that. Every time I connect up some terminals, I'm going to be thinking of plumbing.



That sounds like a fascinating job! Medical? Environmental? Other? Is this for the purpose of gene therapy, by any chance? Can you give more information on the specifics of what you are studying, or is it all hush-hush?


Well, agroculturally relevant. I study the bacteria responsible for fixing nitrogen in symbiosis with legumes. It's not hush at all. I do find it very fascinating, even more so as I slowly discover more. Most of the time, I find that things are far more complicated than we thought at first.
Because I don't work on humans, I just clone bacterial genes as I see fit. The genes that I am particularly interested in are those that encode messages. Messages are important, for example, so that a cell can know which proteins to produce, depending on how many sisters cells surround it, how much nutrients and moisture are close by, if there is a plant that needs its roots infected, etc. These messages are the communication between bacteria, mostly of the same species. But we have plenty of examples of how these messages get read by bacteria of other species too. Sometimes, even algae and plants have ways of transmitting and receiving and even interfering with (as a means of survival) the same messages. It's all very fascinating, but I shall stop now in case you are getting bored. I can definitely get the rambles.

Unless you mean 'religous faith', I don't think you really understand what faith is. As you atleast have faith in your own opinion.

"Faith" is the belief in something for which there is no evidence. If there's evidence, there's no need for faith. I've no faith in my opinion. Sometimes I have to make decisions. End of story.

The problem is that you can't live your life without putting faith in atleast something, even if it is proof. As at some point even proof becomes unfounded because you take it right down to it's base and it's roots lay in suspositions and theories.

I’ve no faith in proof. I’ve found that betting on proof is the more successful way to go.

For instance you seem to have faith in the possibility of our sun going nova; only I imagine you will of never been presented with any empirical (first hand) evidence of such an event. You've probably only read or maybe even just told about one.

Yeah, I admit I read about novas in science articles. Astronomers say they've observed novas, but maybe there just messin' with our heads. Again, science has a much better record of predictability than religion.
Scientific theories about reality are framed in such a way that they can be tested against reality. No matter how many tests are performed, they can never be conclusively proved. So testability means in practice that they must be falsifiable.

So this proves the existence of the supernatural?

Science is there to help you know what is false.
I s'pose so. It's also there to help us find the truth. Sometimes science is good as e.g. antibiotics. Sometimes it's bad e.g. biological warfare. Science is amoral. Truth is amoral.

Faith is there so you can either stand by the Truth or just find your own truths.

Faith is a psychological crutch. Chosing to stand with a crutch is okay by me. Forcing me to use one is not.

why not read the comic books instead? sorry i'm a geek.
No apologies necessary here, for that kind of thing. I'm under the impression there may be a majority of geek tendencies here, to some degree. *pokes self*

BTW, Zoidburg rocks.

I believe there is a reference to “other people” in there (will try to look it up)
Lilith, Nod, et cetera ....
Other books ... Jubilee, Enoch, other Apocrypha ......

EDIT: One of my favourite tunes is "Lilith/Eve" from Machines of Loving Grace, i accidentally focused poorly on my post. My apologies on misleading anyone.

*whimpers*

Lilith, Nod, et cetera ....
Other books ... Jubilee, Enoch, other Apocrypha ......

EDIT: One of my favourite tunes is "Lilith/Eve" from Machines of Loving Grace, i accidentally focused poorly on my post. My apologies on misleading anyone.

*whimpers*
Thank you ... gravy mentioned it earlier too ... bright people you two are lol

Thank you ... gravy mentioned it earlier too ... bright people you two are lol
In the sea of contentious socio-religious issues, especially Judeo-Christian in nature, Gravy's an aircraft carrier and i'm a tugboat. As far as i've seen, i would do well to concede to his points in these kinds matters.
;)
Thanks for the compliment though. The sentiment is definitely mutual.
Hope you don't mind me lifting posts from you on occasion (feel free to do same)!! *bows*
I have to look up the Midrash material .... it is a true shame i don't read/learn as fast as i want (given the time i've got to do so) ... :(

In the sea of contentious socio-religious issues, especially Judeo-Christian in nature, Gravy's an aircraft carrier and i'm a tugboat. As far as i've seen, i would do well to concede to his points in these kinds matters.
;)
Thanks for the compliment though. The sentiment is definitely mutual.
Hope you don't mind me lifting posts from you on occasion (feel free to do same)!! *bows*
I have to look up the Midrash material .... it is a true shame i don't read/learn as fast as i want (given the time i've got to do so) ... :(
I am a logic arguer …while I have covered my bible more then a few times my strength is in reasoning not in literature

Gravy babe is awesome at literature and logic … I defiantly look up to him :)

Anyways enough sucking up
Feel free to call me out when I make my common errors lol

I am a logic arguer …while I have covered my bible more then a few times my strength is in reasoning not in literature

Gravy babe is awesome at literature and logic … I defiantly look up to him :)

Anyways enough sucking up
Feel free to call me out when I make my common errors lol
:eek:

Have i?
I would say i'm a more learned boy now.
I wouldn't envy anyone to argue with you either!

Christians assume God to omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving correct?

Well then if that was the case why doesn't God simple create people whom have both free will and (by virtue of his omniscience ) will not be Hell bound?

For that matter could he not foreseen and prevent both the fall of Adam and Lucifer?

Doesn't God's absolute foreknowledge make the crucifixion a suicide?

Just asking.

The logic is not faulty, but your understanding of it is. God doesn’t create people to go to hell people choose their own destiny.

Also traducianism states that the soul comes into existence at conception and is in some way passed on by its parents in other words; soulish potentialities are contained in the parents’ egg and sperm. To put it simply you would not be the person you are if one or both or of your parents were different people. That means the only way God can make me is if my entire ancestral lineage had preceded me, because different grandparents mean different parents and thus different materials for the soul.

So God would not just weigh individuals but he must weigh entire ancestral chains, so it may be that God allows some chains to come about with some in them that will choose hell but which allow for others to be born who will trust God. (JP Moreland)

The bible is all true right?


*( ill keep it short and sweet )*
Who here beleaves incest is bad genetically and moraly?
Adam and Eve had 2 boys and 3 girls right?
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT... not only is it a sin i guess but it would make the children retarded... why arent we drooling out of our asses?

another
Noahs Arc

ok this guy had to build a ship and put 2 of every animal? WOW first off THATS A REALLY HUGE BOAT!!! i dont know if we could do that today with our tech.
but ok lets give him that one...
Lets say the boat was built in either Europe or the Middle East... ok
what about the animals in North and South America... how did they travel that far? + did they swim...?

this just F***s up the bible thumpers who say the Bible is all factual.

Lilith, Nod, et cetera ....
Other books ... Jubilee, Enoch, other Apocrypha ......

EDIT: One of my favourite tunes is "Lilith/Eve" from Machines of Loving Grace, i accidentally focused poorly on my post. My apologies on misleading anyone.

*whimpers*Uh, Lilith wasn't a person (that was made up in the middle ages), it was a demon of some sort. Nod was the land where Cain fled to after killing Abel. Enoch was a decendent of Adam too.

I had to look up the book of Jubilees (if that's what you're talking about), but if what I read was correct and it was written AD, I don't know how reliable it might or might not be. I have no idea what it says about Genesis either.

I do agree though that there's these implied 'other people' in the bible. It's never explained how Adam and Eve are the first but then they have some children that somehow find some wives somewhere. I mostly put it down to something in the story that was lost in time. I can't imagine people wouldn't have noticed such inconsistencies and questioned them.

The bible is all true right?


*( ill keep it short and sweet )*
Who here beleaves incest is bad genetically and moraly?
Adam and Eve had 2 boys and 3 girls right?
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT... not only is it a sin i guess but it would make the children retarded... why arent we drooling out of our asses?

another
Noahs Arc

ok this guy had to build a ship and put 2 of every animal? WOW first off THATS A REALLY HUGE BOAT!!! i dont know if we could do that today with our tech.
but ok lets give him that one...
Lets say the boat was built in either Europe or the Middle East... ok
what about the animals in North and South America... how did they travel that far? + did they swim...?

this just F***s up the bible thumpers who say the Bible is all factual.

Adam and Eve had more children than just those, try reading more of genesis....by the way. If they'd only had two sons the world would have ended right there. Cain kills Abel....Cain's forced to run off.....there'd be no male left to carry on the lineage at all......Who's to say we haven't been genetically declining since Adam and Eve? Many of the diseases we have today could have been due to that original incest......

As for Noah's ark, this is why some people believe that the flood created the seperation of the continents from one-another.....if the continents were still connected, then they'd have no need to swim.....I'm not saying I'm right, and I'm sure a lot of you can come in here and disprove anythign and everything I've said....but that's the way things go. ^_^

Indeed, the variety appears to be great. One wonders how is one to arrive at the 'norm'. I think Darwin summed it up quite well. 'survival of the fittest'. And if that is how you chose to live your life, you will make a great mess of it (according to how I see life anyway). Your friendships will be formed out of the motive of 'what can I get out of it?'. The lives of your children will be worth a lot more than the life of the next one, although you may kill your child if that helps your immediate survival. Alternatively, you may give your life trying to save your child. But you will have to decide, since there doesn't appear to be a 'norm' in nature.

I disagree that protecting ones own progeny isn't the norm in nature, if you're talking about mammals, at any rate. Actually, we are all programmed not only for survival of self, but also to spread our own genes as far and wide as possible, which explains why one of our strongest instincts is to protect our children with our own lives, if need be. Have you ever read, "The Selfish Gene," by Richard Dawkins?

I don't see how Jesus way lying. The use of the word 'yet' simply means (to me) that at the time that his brothers were preparing to go to the feast, he was not ready. He wanted to go a little later, although for obvious reasons he didn't want his brothers broadcasting this. The reason.....some people were looking out for him, in order to kill him. Perhaps they were watching all the roads. For him to arrive publically would have placed his life in danger. So he had to arrive late, and secretly. He was perfectly honest to say that he did not want to go with his brothers.

I find it funny that you would say that there is no instance in which a wrong could be considered right in Christianity (in response to my saying that lying to protect one's own life would be acceptable), and yet you defend Jesus's motive for deceiving his brothers because some people wanted to kill him. And according to John, he didn't tell his brothers he didn't want to go with them - he said he wasn't going to go yet. But as soon as they left, he went there in secret. Is this or is this not deceptive behavior?

According to your method, though, we needed people like Hitler to learn how not to survive. That is rather an expensive lesson. I don't think it would go down well with the Jews, or anybody else that lost grandfathers and great-uncles (me, for example) fighting in a stupid bloody war because some fool thought it would be better for the survival of the human race.

You were the one who link Hitler with survival - not me. And I'm certainly not saying we need such people - we don't. This type of thing has gone on since time began, and we humans are slow learners and quick to forget such lessons. I wish we were smarter, but apparently we're not.

That would get a bit thin, wouldn't it, when the chips are down, and life itself looks more like a curse than a blessing. I mean, if you are sick of life, what is the point of learning. If you have lost your joy, how do you get it back again. Lift yourself up by your hair?

Why not? I have to confess that I really don't understand depression - at least, not when one still has one's health and one's wits and a roof over one's head and food in one's belly. I've gone through some pretty rough times, and I don't remember ever going through any serious period of depression. There is always so much to experience and learn in this life - why would anyone want to waste a great deal of time being depressed?

At least I hope you can take my posts without feeling like I have disrespected you. My mother always taught me to have a healthy respect for my elders, more respect the older they are. I never did find out her rational for this. But nowadays, I reckon it is the better way to raise children. Furthermore, you have managed posts well enough for me to be completely oblivious to your age. Well done.

I never felt you were being disrespectful, and I hope you don't feel that way about my posts. Sometimes I forget how dearly people hold their beliefs, and how upsetting my ideas can be to them. I don't mean to upset anyone - I just enjoy the debate with those who are up to it. As for being older - I don't feel my age at all - I never have. It helps that I've always looked so much younger than my actual age (the last time I got carded was shortly after I turned 40 - I was buying wine coolers with the rest of my groceries one sunny afternoon - under the full fluorescent lighting of the grocery store) and that I've always been pretty healthy.

Grandchildren.......yeah, I'm still getting over it. Say, what are your plans for retirement? What could you do with your life, after being so busy?

I'm not sure that I'll ever be able to fully retire. I didn't start any retirement savings until I was in my late 30's, and my husband only got started on his retirement savings within the last 7 or 8 years, maybe. We just bought a home in the country a little over a year ago, so we have almost 29 years to go before that's paid for, and about 15 years before our motorhome is paid for. Financial issues aside, Alzheimer's runs very strongly in my father's side of the family, and I fear that I'll succumb to it myself if I ever stop long enough to let it catch up with me. So like I said before, I'll probably work until I drop.

I don't see how the NT contradicts the old (in this point, anyway). The introduction of Jesus in the NT explains how he is God, as do many of the references in Isaiah. The OT references to God not being a man were in the context of Him not thinking along the same selfish narrowminded lines that an ordinary man would. Jesus, in dying for the sins of the whole world, demonstrates that He too was motivated by something other than selfishness.

But what about all the places in the Old Testament where God says that there is no other savior beside him? Jesus was crucified for claiming to be God. If his motive was to be worshipped as God, then this worked out pretty well for him, seeing as how about a third of the world believes he is God and still worships him as such.

Anyone can claim to be God. Perhaps those princes and kings were more likely to do so than you or I today. I have no doubt that one day you and I will die like everybody else. Jesus was no different (in that he too died). But the claim of the scriptures was his resurrection. That puts him in a different category to those old kings and princes.

But it put him in the same category as all the old Pagan savior godmen the gospel stories mimic.

Well, I can't say if you are getting mixed up with all those old names (rather easy, I suppose, considering how many times the same name was used for different people), or if you are getting mixed up between whose lineage was being cursed. Your first reference to the curse was about a king called Ahaz who was a descendent of Nehushta. And now you appear to be naming Jechonias, the son of Nehushta, as the one who had his lineage cursed.

Actually, in the first case, I was talking about the reptilian bloodline of Jesse, and I said nothing about it being a curse. On the other hand, Jechonias (aka Coniah, Jeconiah and Jehoiachin), the despised and broken idol, and his descendants were cursed by God:

Jeremiah 22:28-30 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

And so far, your claim that Jesus and Satan are the same person seems to be based on your reading of the Bible, and yet you yourself would have to admit that there is many claims in the Bible that you don't accept. How about some consistency? You seem to be saying that there is more truth to be believed by 'reading between the lines' than there is in the main (and rather repeated) messages of the books of the Bible.

The New Testament contradicts the Old Testament in many ways. I had to read between the lines to make any sense of it.

And perhaps you would like to suggest who the Heavenly father was that Jesus was referring to, if it wasn't the one who knows that numbers of hairs on our heads.

The prince of the power of the air, perhaps?

It seems to me you don't know how omniscience works. God knew if you were Hell bound before your great to the 100th power grand parents were ever born.


The logic is not faulty, but your understanding of it is. God doesn’t create people to go to hell people choose their own destiny.

Also traducianism states that the soul comes into existence at conception and is in some way passed on by its parents in other words; soulish potentialities are contained in the parents’ egg and sperm. To put it simply you would not be the person you are if one or both or of your parents were different people. That means the only way God can make me is if my entire ancestral lineage had preceded me, because different grandparents mean different parents and thus different materials for the soul.

So God would not just weigh individuals but he must weigh entire ancestral chains, so it may be that God allows some chains to come about with some in them that will choose hell but which allow for others to be born who will trust God. (JP Moreland)

in retrospect you are correct and omnipresent shoild have been included.

[QUOTE=Unspeakable]Christians assume God to omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving correct?

I believe that omnipresent should be in that group, i. e. the power to be present in all times and all places. I am not too sure that all loving quite fits. For one, omniamorous sounds strange and I doubt that he/she/it demostrates too much love, at least as I understand the term. Certainly, one essential tenet of Christianity is suppose to be 'to love one's fellow man' but one doesn't see to much of that either.

Lucifer whose name means 'maker of light' has gotten a raw deal. I think that he/she/it (angels have no gender) just attempted to expand human knowledge a bit. I guess God was not too interested in education.
;)

Are you suggesting a gestlat God?


Logic isn't really subjective. Contradiction is universally accepted as irrational. The only way of getting around that is Doublethink; contradicting yourself and making yourself believe that what you've said isn't a contradiction. It's not the logic that's subjective; you're just not exercising it.

Plus, while there may not be Proof to support that statement in particular, there is a reasonable amount of observational evidence to suggest the ones that it is based on; that Complex Systems result in Emergence and that evolution can be treated as a Complex system. Even Richard Dawkins backs me up on that one (though I think I might need to reread The Blind Watchmaker...).

God is simply the Emergent Consciousness of Evolution, and that manoevring of logic from the aforementioned observation-supported theories isn't a slip.

By the way, such a God wouldn't be an intelligent designer, so you're clear on that front. It's more like the way humans create body cells than the way a builder creates a house.


Oh, and:

Your first paragraph isn't a question. Your second has nothing to do with the statements you made following "Here is a question". So... Yeah. <_<;

And I still say that Adam and Eve is rhetoric. True in the sense of its message, but fiction in the sense of its historical accuracy.

Why thank you! To be honest though, that's a rather uncommon idea; not for religious or spiritual reasons but for the simple reason of the conflicting human thought processes. Artists look at meaning, see that it works and accept everything about the statement without further analysis, because they think they have "what matters". Scientists look at form, see that it doesn't work and reject everything about the statement without further analysis because they think they have "what matters". Hence the bipartitianism, which is probably unnecessary.

Aha... I think I see why this works for me... since I am a Chemist, and a Poet.

Maybe I bridge some kind of object/subject gap. :)

In the sea of contentious socio-religious issues, especially Judeo-Christian in nature, Gravy's an aircraft carrier and i'm a tugboat. As far as i've seen, i would do well to concede to his points in these kinds matters.
;)


Why, thank you, my friend!

It's moments like this that make me feel, maybe it IS all worth it, after all. :)

And I wouldn't have said you were a tugboat... because I've seen you in there blazing before, so it must be something with guns. :)

I am a logic arguer …while I have covered my bible more then a few times my strength is in reasoning not in literature

Gravy babe is awesome at literature and logic … I defiantly look up to him :)

Anyways enough sucking up
Feel free to call me out when I make my common errors lol

Wow... turned into a regular love-in, while I was away. :)

The feeling is mutual, my friend. :fluffle:

It used to annoy me in R.E. to find out what the bible said about people like me (illegitimate, female, heretic, witches-don't freak out I'm not a satanist). It still makes me angry to think what they did to people like me, how they discredited the secret feminine, burnt witches, tried to close down all the theatres, batised me before i could even speak to stop them. I would love to hit Oliver Cromwell, Witch Hunter General etc. But I can't so I'm going to get on with my life and make my heaven here on earth, because some people go through pointless ordeals for religion but don't see how beautiful and amazing this planet is. Just have a great life, but not at the expense of others.
P.S. Read the Da Vinci code, it may even be more true than the bible.

Uh, Lilith wasn't a person (that was made up in the middle ages), it was a demon of some sort. Nod was the land where Cain fled to after killing Abel. Enoch was a decendent of Adam too.

I had to look up the book of Jubilees (if that's what you're talking about), but if what I read was correct and it was written AD, I don't know how reliable it might or might not be. I have no idea what it says about Genesis either.

I do agree though that there's these implied 'other people' in the bible. It's never explained how Adam and Eve are the first but then they have some children that somehow find some wives somewhere. I mostly put it down to something in the story that was lost in time. I can't imagine people wouldn't have noticed such inconsistencies and questioned them.

Try reading around some early Hebrew mythology... Lilith has been being discussed as a person since long before that 'Jesus' fellow appeared on the scene - although she is relatively new to the 'western' consciousness.

Having read the Genesis creation story in the native tongue, I find it hard to beleive that it is meant to be taken literally... certainly this seems true of the first couple of chapters of Genesis.

The fact that Adam means 'earth' and Eve means 'life', strongly suggests that the 'marriage of Adam and Eve' is a mere retelling of the 'god breathing life into the man made from dust' story. Thus, the number of children they have is pretty much irrelevent.

Wow... turned into a regular love-in, while I was away. :)

The feeling is mutual, my friend. :fluffle:;) :fluffle: Crazy how things work

It used to annoy me in R.E. to find out what the bible said about people like me (illegitimate, female, heretic, witches-don't freak out I'm not a satanist). It still makes me angry to think what they did to people like me, how they discredited the secret feminine, burnt witches, tried to close down all the theatres, batised me before i could even speak to stop them. I would love to hit Oliver Cromwell, Witch Hunter General etc. But I can't so I'm going to get on with my life and make my heaven here on earth, because some people go through pointless ordeals for religion but don't see how beautiful and amazing this planet is. Just have a great life, but not at the expense of others.
P.S. Read the Da Vinci code, it may even be more true than the bible.

Excellent sentiments, excellent post. Oh - and welcome to NationStates. :)

;) :fluffle: Crazy how things work

It's no bad thing, though.... far too often, these forums are full of people trying to dyslexically-decapitate each other. It pleases me that there can be some occasional oasis of mutual appreciation. :)

:fluffle: to all.

Well, I suppose there remains a difference between the incident between Abraham and Isaac and God, and that of the ancient Pagans, for whom human sacrifice was an institution.

It was an institution for the ancient Hebrews as well - otherwise they wouldn't have had laws written about it.

Well, that is interesting. The Bible says that the destruction was at the hands of God. He ordered the destruction of the Amalekites, for example. He destroyed nearly all of the Jews (Babylonian captivity) at one point. And yet, the Bible clearly says that, in each case, the people were warned beforehand that destruction was on its way, unless they changed their actions. They were not to worship Pagan gods, because this apparently led to practices that were disgusting. That would mean that the responsibility of the destruction was then in the hands of the Jews (in the case of their own destruction) and also in the hands of the Amalekites (in the case of their destruction). So the destruction was indeed at the hands of God, but the responsibility for the destruction goes to the people who insisted on going their own way (i.e. rebellion against God).

Worship of the god of Abraham led to some pretty disgusting practices as well. I don't think that was the point at all. It's kind of like you telling your little child that you're going to kill him if he misbehaves, and then carrying the threat out when he inevitably misbehaves. Would that make you a good or loving parent or would it make you a bloodthirsty monster?

[QUOTE=Bruarong]Of course I wanted my mother to be happy. She wanted it too. But she loved her husband. She just didn't love him so long as he loved her back. She had a much deeper love than that. She had plenty of opportunities to marry other men. But she turned them all down, because she believed that she made a vow before God to love that man (my father), and with God's help she loves him today still. She still gets sad at times, of course. But she had become the most wonderful loving woman that I have ever met. Of course I am biased. But I deeply respect her for demonstrating what real love means, rather than this thing we humans commonly have called infatuation, or attraction. She has what I call tough love. Love hurts. And she chose to love, even though she had plenty of reasons to hate him. I try to follow her example, and love my dad too. I reckon that is what Jesus would have done.

I don't see this as love - I see it as desperately clinging to the past - definitely an unhealthy thing in my book, and it rarely seems to work out.

Food. Food for the rich? Food for those who don't need it? At any rate, you would have to allow, then, that since the Hebrews considered the death of an animal for a sacrifice as more important than death for food, that it was hardly evil of them to do so, since their motives were good (or at least better than the motive for food, from their point of view).

What are you trying to say? That rich people don't need to eat? Everyone needs to eat - rich or poor, young or old, male or female, black or white, good or bad - you name it. The motives of the priests who made up such nonsense were definitely not good.

Some people pushing the Bible on you doesn't mean that we all do. Indeed, here we are in a thread that is claiming that Christianity is based on flaws. Relax. I'm not trying to convert you. That is between you and God.

I have no problem with you, Bruarong. In fact, I rather enjoy our little debates. The problem is those aggressive Fundamentalist type Christians who think it is their duty to convert me. They're all too prevalent.

I do enjoy attempting to defend Christianity (and often hope that I'm not doing it's public image even more damage).

Personally, I don't think you're doing it any damage. All the damage has been done long before now and I don't think there's anything you could or would say to make it any worse.

Like I pointed out before, when a culture is warned by God to change their direction, and they refuse, they can only blame themeselves. It's not like we are in a world where we have no consequences for our actions. In defense of the Jews, they were apparently trying to obey God. It's not like they believed in destroying other cultures for monetary gain.

That's like blaming the victims of abuse for what happened to them. God has no excuse for behaving that way - he should definitely know better.

how about, 'Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church, and gave his life for her.' Would that impress you? Do you have an equivalent message coming from the 'norm' in nature?

I didn't notice when we had switched from discussing Jesus's attitude toward women to Paul's version of Christianity. (Although Paul's attitudes toward women are kind of a mixed bag as well.) I think Paul's point in this was to help men to rule over their wives, and he knew that such a pill would go down easier with a bit of sugar. Anyway, I generally see more equality between the sexes in nature (although certainly not always).

Well, agroculturally relevant. I study the bacteria responsible for fixing nitrogen in symbiosis with legumes. It's not hush at all. I do find it very fascinating, even more so as I slowly discover more. Most of the time, I find that things are far more complicated than we thought at first.
Because I don't work on humans, I just clone bacterial genes as I see fit. The genes that I am particularly interested in are those that encode messages. Messages are important, for example, so that a cell can know which proteins to produce, depending on how many sisters cells surround it, how much nutrients and moisture are close by, if there is a plant that needs its roots infected, etc. These messages are the communication between bacteria, mostly of the same species. But we have plenty of examples of how these messages get read by bacteria of other species too. Sometimes, even algae and plants have ways of transmitting and receiving and even interfering with (as a means of survival) the same messages.

Interesting. Do you ever see either confirmation or contradictions of your religious beliefs in your work? Do you ever feel you were led to the type of work you do to help you make such connections?

Uh, Lilith wasn't a person (that was made up in the middle ages), it was a demon of some sort. Nod was the land where Cain fled to after killing Abel. Enoch was a decendent of Adam too.

I had to look up the book of Jubilees (if that's what you're talking about), but if what I read was correct and it was written AD, I don't know how reliable it might or might not be. I have no idea what it says about Genesis either.

I do agree though that there's these implied 'other people' in the bible. It's never explained how Adam and Eve are the first but then they have some children that somehow find some wives somewhere. I mostly put it down to something in the story that was lost in time. I can't imagine people wouldn't have noticed such inconsistencies and questioned them.
BOOK of Enoch. Yes, book of Jubilees.
That's the point. Excision. Why?

If God prevented crimes but allowed free will, what would the human race learn from it? The idea of God creating us with a soul is so that we can perfect ourselves through time. Basically we need to see sins into order to learn and become virtuous.

Are you suggesting a gestlat God?
It's similar to the Gestalt Theory, certainly. It looks at humans and life in an interaction with their environment as an open system that can be analogous to the correlation between conscious experience and the activity of brain and/or body cells. Or, to put it another way, God is to man as Human is to cell: the sum of the parts, plus a little bit extra that can be explained through emergence (the result of relationships and interactions between the parts). God is evolution; made up entirely of matter built from the ground up that interacted to increasing complexity. But God also has a self that exists outside of that composition that arose as a direct result of such a co-operation.

{{ Sidetracking; This's just spur of the moment stuff here, and probably not terribly relevant:

Omnipotence is therefore out of the question; no being has complete control over their own bodies. However, Omnicognicence (all knowing) is debatable, depending firstly on whether or not you think that since our body works fine, we somehow subconsciously know how everything within it functions, and secondly on the degree to which we apply temporal physics to an incredibly large but structured spatial body. Omniscience (all seeing) is, arguably, very possible if he can subconsciously analyse every aspect of himself. Omnibenevolence (all loving) is possible if you consider that the body wants all its cells to live well for their own security, safety and health, and Omnipresence (all present) is a logical certainty if you say that since God is everything, he is everywhere, too.

}}

The idea has moved from Gestalt Theory to Living Systems Theory and now as Complex Systems theory. Most Complex Systems theorists wouldn't speculate that their structure allows a definition of a Universal Complex System, probably because there's no evidence to suggest that the pattern works beyond a Societal level. But that it has been demonstrated to work at the material, cellular, psychological and Societal levels is a pretty impressive background, and I argue that the step of logic to apply it Generally isn't a large one at all.

If God prevented crimes but allowed free will, what would the human race learn from it? The idea of God creating us with a soul is so that we can perfect ourselves through time. Basically we need to see sins into order to learn and become virtuous.
That’s fine but an all powerful and loving god would have no need to punish a person eternally

Its like a parent grounding a kid on the first infraction for the rest of their life

Yes the kid may have known it was wrong or had an idea it was wrong and yes sometimes he needs to be punished ... but the reason we punish kids is to TEACH them

Unlike the proposed god that only uses this "punishment" to "teach us" when it is beyond our ability to apply our new knowledge as we are dead and eternally in hell

I disagree that protecting ones own progeny isn't the norm in nature, if you're talking about mammals, at any rate. Actually, we are all programmed not only for survival of self, but also to spread our own genes as far and wide as possible, which explains why one of our strongest instincts is to protect our children with our own lives, if need be. Have you ever read, "The Selfish Gene," by Richard Dawkins?

I've heard of the book, and even read excerpts. It's one of my 'gonna do' projects. I think one of his points is that he tries to explain every observable human trait in terms of selfishness and survival. I won't criticise him or his book until I have read it.
But you should be careful when you use words like 'programmed'. It makes it look like there might be a programmer. But I think my earlier point still stands, with the exception of your disagreement about mammals protecting their own progeny (you could have a point there). My point that a life based on survival is fine for the animals, but not for humans. It would make the whole point of human life about survival. I think there is far more to life than reproducing and working and sleeping and eating making sure the next person doesn't get the advantage over you. I think life is supposed to be filled with things like compassion, honesty, faithfulness, loyalty, grace, forgiveness, friendship (that is, the self-sacrificing version), patience, hope, faith, and most of all, love.

A classic example is the situation my wife is in. She wants to send a questionaire to each German teaching academy in Africa, to find someone there who will tell her about how they teach German in their school. It's part of her research. But I just don't see it being very successful, unless, 1. there happens to be a lot of kind souls out there who would go out of their way to help a stranger (i.e. more than I have ever met), or 2. she promises them a whole box of goodies or cash, upon the return of the papers. My point is that we humans can distinguish between selfishness and self-sacrifice. We understand. We know that most humans, when confronted with the options, are going to take the easier path most of the time. Our heros of old have been, in many cases, those people who, although ordinary like us in many ways, have become famous because they brought about change because they took the harder path. People like Gandi, Nelson Mendela, Martin Luther King, Martin Luther, even the chap who started the Salvation army, William Booth, and the chap who put an end to slavery in England, William Wilberforce and his Quaker friends. These people suffered for a cause that they believed in. In some cases it cost their lives. They were obviously not placing survival first. Today, lots of people think life is should be about 'me first, look out for No. 1'. That is the very sure fire way of making your life crap.

Like Jesus said, it is better to give than to receive. And the proof is in the pudding.



I find it funny that you would say that there is no instance in which a wrong could be considered right in Christianity (in response to my saying that lying to protect one's own life would be acceptable), and yet you defend Jesus's motive for deceiving his brothers because some people wanted to kill him. And according to John, he didn't tell his brothers he didn't want to go with them - he said he wasn't going to go yet. But as soon as they left, he went there in secret. Is this or is this not deceptive behavior?


You can only claim that it was a deception if you can prove that Jesus told his brothers that he was not going to the festival, at all. His brothers may or may not have understood this. There were many things that He said that they misunderstood. I understand that Jesus deliberated wanted to go later. Considering that the festival usually lasted about a week, it could have been one or two or even three days later, after his brothers had left.
Futhermore, the account in John does not even tell us whether his brothers thought he was coming to the festival later, or if he was coming at all. Everybody who reads the Gospels should know that the writers only included the facts that they thought necessary. It's almost as if they were intentionally trying to keep the accounts as short as possible. Based on what we have, you are not even trying to be fair by declaring that Jesus was deliberately lying or deceiving his brothers. Rather than believe your point of view to be the only one, at least allow that it was possible that Jesus did not lie or deceive, given the limited amount of information available.


You were the one who link Hitler with survival - not me. And I'm certainly not saying we need such people - we don't. This type of thing has gone on since time began, and we humans are slow learners and quick to forget such lessons. I wish we were smarter, but apparently we're not.


My point was that we shouldn't go looking at nature to learn how to live our lives. We need something more, otherwise we tend to go places like Hitler. He was simply being consistent with what he saw in nature. The fitter survive. Of course he didn't survive, and one can argue therefore that he wasn't so fit. That is, however, a separate issue, and does not help you refute the first point. We need something that stops us from taking Hitler's path in the first place, something greater than our own selfish desire to survive.


Why not? I have to confess that I really don't understand depression - at least, not when one still has one's health and one's wits and a roof over one's head and food in one's belly. I've gone through some pretty rough times, and I don't remember ever going through any serious period of depression. There is always so much to experience and learn in this life - why would anyone want to waste a great deal of time being depressed?


The fact that so many people are depressed, and that the statistics (if you believe them) suggest that depression is on the rise, is an indication that things are getting worse, not better. From a personal perspective, people do seem to be getting lonlier (and busier) nowadays. Of course I cannot objectively measure this. Just an impression.
One more comment, if you have never experienced depression, perhaps you have never been in a situation where the chips are well and truly down. Your city doesn't feel so ravaged until the fighting is within.

On the other hand, if you have not truly suffered from depression, then you can be thankful. I suppose you are one of the few.


But what about all the places in the Old Testament where God says that there is no other savior beside him? Jesus was crucified for claiming to be God. If his motive was to be worshipped as God, then this worked out pretty well for him, seeing as how about a third of the world believes he is God and still worships him as such.

I understand that modern theology holds that God consists of three people. That would explain why the first chapter in Genesis mentions God as a plural, not a singular. Thus, when God says, in the OT, that there was no other saviour beside Himself, I take it to mean that there are no other saviours apart from the Holy Three. Jesus, in claiming to be God, meant that he considered himself one of the three. Of course, he was killed because of his claim. But that is exactly what he predicted. The other chaps who claimed to be God were not killed because of their claim, to my knowledge. They died in spite of it.


Actually, in the first case, I was talking about the reptilian bloodline of Jesse, and I said nothing about it being a curse. On the other hand, Jechonias (aka Coniah, Jeconiah and Jehoiachin), the despised and broken idol, and his descendants were cursed by God:

Jeremiah 22:28-30 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not? O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

I don't recall Jesse's bloodline being labelled as serpentile. (Perhaps you could show me where this is.) Some of his decendents were likened to reptiles, perhaps, but I do not consider this the same as Jesse's bloodline being considered so.

As for Jehoiachin, none of his decendents were ever to rule from Judah upon the throne of David. That prophecy came true (assuming it was really a prediction). It is true that his name is listed as one of the ancestors of Joseph, the husband of Mary. But should that make the prophecy invalid?



The New Testament contradicts the Old Testament in many ways. I had to read between the lines to make any sense of it.


If you were being objective about it, you would be more likely to say that the two parts of the Bible appear to contradict. I would allow that. I would even say the same. Over the years, though, I have come to resolve many of these 'contradictions'. Some, no, many, remain. But my point is that they can be resolved if one is prepared to study the scriptures with an open heart, as close to objectivity as possible. When something appears to contradict, there are at least two possibilities. One is that they truly do contradict. The second is that you don't understand enough to know how they can be resolved. And if the second is true, you may or may not realize that you don't know enough. Or you may have an inkling that this could be so, but have persisted in ignoring this possibility.

But getting back to my original point, have you find the Scriptures so contradictory that you missed the part where Jesus says 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life' and yet picked up on the part where the Jesus says 'I am the Light of the world', and that that somehow makes him Satan who is supposed to masquerade as an angel of light? I don't find that reasoning very objective.

So long as you want the Bible to be contradictory, I doubt that you will have any trouble doing so. From God's perspective (according to my reading of the Scriptures), it's your choice, after all, and He is not going to take it away from you.



The prince of the power of the air, perhaps?


You started by suggesting that Jesus and Satan were the same, and now you are saying that Jesus is the son of Satan???? Are you deliberately trying to be confusing?

As for Jehoiachin, none of his decendents were ever to rule from Judah upon the throne of David. That prophecy came true (assuming it was really a prediction). It is true that his name is listed as one of the ancestors of Joseph, the husband of Mary. But should that make the prophecy invalid?


Jesus cannot be Messiah, because Messiah will be from the house of David, and sit on the throne of David.

While Jesus MIGHT qualify for the 'house of David', he is also listed as being of the line of Jeconiah... who's line is FORBIDDEN from ever sitting on David's throne.

Thus, the math is simple: Jesus cannont be messiah.

Christians assume God to omniscient, omnipotent, and all loving correct?

Well then if that was the case why doesn't God simple create people whom have both free will and (by virtue of his omniscience ) will not be Hell bound?

For that matter could he not foreseen and prevent both the fall of Adam and Lucifer?

Doesn't God's absolute foreknowledge make the crucifixion a suicide?

Just asking.

You aren't asking you are trying to piss a bunch of christians off by attacking their religion.

You aren't asking you are trying to piss a bunch of christians off by attacking their religion.
No questioning the correctness of something that is and has been used to try to justify controlling our lives

Jesus cannot be Messiah, because Messiah will be from the house of David, and sit on the throne of David.

While Jesus MIGHT qualify for the 'house of David', he is also listed as being of the line of Jeconiah... who's line is FORBIDDEN from ever sitting on David's throne.

Thus, the math is simple: Jesus cannont be messiah.
Not to mention the assertion that the immaculate conception makes him not a descendant of Adam at ALL (therefore removing him from being afflicted by original sin)

47 pages and still nobody sees that people have their beliefs. Whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, etc....Until we can just drop the "i'm right and you're wrong" B.S., the human race will be severely held back. Evolution didn't stop with us getting thumbs. To each his own.

If Jesus is God and vice versa, and God impregnated Mary, doesn't that make Jesus a motherfu....nevermind.

This is post #13 in actuality
God didn't impregnate Mary! I have to stop looking at this forum, it makes me too angry. I will now leave and enjoy thinking about how you all are going to suffer for an eternity and you will all certainly recall the cruel and disgusting things you have said about God. That gives you all of eternity to wish you didn't piss God off so much in this life. Ahhh...poetic justice.

God didn't impregnate Mary! I have to stop looking at this forum, it makes me too angry. I will now leave and enjoy thinking about how you all are going to suffer for an eternity and you will all certainly recall the cruel and disgusting things you have said about God. That gives you all of eternity to wish you didn't piss God off so much in this life. Ahhh...poetic justice.


why are you so angry? its none of your business what he thinks about jesus or god.

God didn't impregnate Mary! I have to stop looking at this forum, it makes me too angry. I will now leave and enjoy thinking about how you all are going to suffer for an eternity and you will all certainly recall the cruel and disgusting things you have said about God. That gives you all of eternity to wish you didn't piss God off so much in this life. Ahhh...poetic justice.

A well reasoned, and balanced riposte.

No - wait, sorry....

It's true... Mary carried Jehovah's IVF love-child... and Eve is a clone.

God didn't impregnate Mary! I have to stop looking at this forum, it makes me too angry. I will now leave and enjoy thinking about how you all are going to suffer for an eternity and you will all certainly recall the cruel and disgusting things you have said about God. That gives you all of eternity to wish you didn't piss God off so much in this life. Ahhh...poetic justice.
how very calvanistic of you

A well reasoned, and balanced riposte.

No - wait, sorry....

It's true... Mary carried Jehovah's IVF love-child... and Eve is a clone.
Lol to be fair you could concider her a surrogate mother ...

Not to mention the assertion that the immaculate conception makes him not a descendant of Adam at ALL (therefore removing him from being afflicted by original sin)

Indeed. :D

I've no doubt, given time and inclination, I could find a good half dozen reasons to exclude Jesus from fulfilling the Messiah prophecies...

how very calvanistic of you

Yay! Calvin rules! (And his tiger is cool, too).

:D

Indeed. :D

I've no doubt, given time and inclination, I could find a good half dozen reasons to exclude Jesus from fulfilling the Messiah prophecies...
I wont bet ya on that :fluffle: :p

Lol to be fair you could concider her a surrogate mother ...

Actually - I'd have to rule out the surrogate thing... Mary never actually consented.. thus, Jesus was the result of rape... (I have suspicions this is actually a veiled attack on Rome... the 'conquer by progeny' approach that the Empire used to increase it's borders)... 'love-child' was my delicate way of describing the fact that he was conceived out of wedlock...

I wont bet ya on that :fluffle: :p

But, I'm playing nice. :) I'm only attacking OBVIOUS flaws.

I always knew that there was something wrong about Christianity.

I want to know how people reconcile this for themselves, this is one of the reasons I'm not a Christian. You aren't asking you are trying to piss a bunch of christians off by attacking their religion.

But you should be careful when you use words like 'programmed'. It makes it look like there might be a programmer.

There is - well, there are many of them, actually: church, government, society, schools, the media, parents, peers, etc. As individuals, we are programmed by our experiences in this life, particularly when we are young and impressionable. And our species is programmed by its collective experience, which allows us to learn what works out best for our survival and what doesn't. Those who don't figure it out don't get to pass on their genes to the next generation.

But I think my earlier point still stands, with the exception of your disagreement about mammals protecting their own progeny (you could have a point there). My point that a life based on survival is fine for the animals, but not for humans. It would make the whole point of human life about survival. I think there is far more to life than reproducing and working and sleeping and eating making sure the next person doesn't get the advantage over you. I think life is supposed to be filled with things like compassion, honesty, faithfulness, loyalty, grace, forgiveness, friendship (that is, the self-sacrificing version), patience, hope, faith, and most of all, love.

And yet we have evolved into what we are now in our attempt to survive as a species. That's just the way it works. Those of us who have survived are generally those who had the best survival strategies. This doesn't always translate to cut-throat behavior, by the way. In fact, it often means learning to cooperate with others. Perhaps this is where you're getting confused?

Like Jesus said, it is better to give than to receive.

Or at least that's what the not-so-guileless Paul claimed, according to Acts 20:35. Unfortunately, it seems that all four gospel writers had overlooked this gem when they recorded the words of Jesus.

Rather than believe your point of view to be the only one, at least allow that it was possible that Jesus did not lie or deceive, given the limited amount of information available.

Okay - as long as you are willing to allow that it is possible that he was being deliberately deceptive.

My point was that we shouldn't go looking at nature to learn how to live our lives. We need something more, otherwise we tend to go places like Hitler. He was simply being consistent with what he saw in nature. The fitter survive. Of course he didn't survive, and one can argue therefore that he wasn't so fit. That is, however, a separate issue, and does not help you refute the first point. We need something that stops us from taking Hitler's path in the first place, something greater than our own selfish desire to survive.

But our own selfish desire to survive is exactly what keeps our species going. I do agree, though, that if we are too selfish as a species, we will overuse the planet's resources and eventually doom ourselves. Then Nature will have to start on a new evolutionary path using whatever material is left, and hopefully it will work out better the next time. Of course, had we paid closer attention to Nature and her messages to us, this might have been avoided.

One more comment, if you have never experienced depression, perhaps you have never been in a situation where the chips are well and truly down. Your city doesn't feel so ravaged until the fighting is within.

When I was married to my first husband, we lived in an apartment with no furniture at all for about a year. We had to sleep on a foam pad, with one blanket to put down on the pad and one to cover up with. We lived in a city that was cold and rainy. For the most part, we were living on my piddly income of less than $400 a month. Then he started cheating on me, and later started beating up on me when I was pregnant with my first child. He refused to work, and when I could no longer work, he decided that we would just go on welfare. Well, the first check came in his name, and guess what? He ran off with it for 3 days. When he came back, all the money was gone and there was nothing left to pay rent with. By the time I was 7 months pregnant, I was facing homelessness, and consequently, the possible loss of my child. That's when my parents came up from another state, with a shotgun, and rescued me from that situation.

I won't say that this didn't upset me at all - it most certainly did. And I won't tell you that I didn't spend a little bit of time feeling sorry for myself - I did my share of that, too - but not for long. My mother was a nightmare in her own way, to the point where I sometimes wondered if homelessness might not have been the better choice. But at least I was able to keep my child and get back on my feet. By the time my son was 5 months old, I had another job and an apartment of my own. And that's where I met my present husband, who was the mailman on my route. The rest, as they say, is history.

I understand that modern theology holds that God consists of three people. That would explain why the first chapter in Genesis mentions God as a plural, not a singular. Thus, when God says, in the OT, that there was no other saviour beside Himself, I take it to mean that there are no other saviours apart from the Holy Three.

And where was God the Mother in all of this? Is she the one you call the Holy Ghost? Is this what is meant when it says that men were created in their image, male and female? If so, this is one of the few parts of the bible that might actually make some sense.

Jumping ahead, due to it being almost 6:30 already (time for work)...

You started by suggesting that Jesus and Satan were the same, and now you are saying that Jesus is the son of Satan???? Are you deliberately trying to be confusing?

No more confusing than the Christian concept of Jesus being both God and the son of God. :)

It was an institution for the ancient Hebrews as well - otherwise they wouldn't have had laws written about it.

Not necessarily. The laws may have been there to prevent the Hebrews from adopting the customs of the surrounding cultures.


Worship of the god of Abraham led to some pretty disgusting practices as well. I don't think that was the point at all. It's kind of like you telling your little child that you're going to kill him if he misbehaves, and then carrying the threat out when he inevitably misbehaves. Would that make you a good or loving parent or would it make you a bloodthirsty monster?


What are the practices that you would consider disgusting?

If God punished the people for making mistakes, he would indeed be a monster. But He did not, as I see it. The punishment was for a deliberate and intentional persistence in pursing their own way, regardless of the warnings of the prophets. The fact that God disciplined them suggest that He was concerned that they should be corrected, encouraged to take the right path, as parent ensures a child learns character during their development.


I don't see this as love - I see it as desperately clinging to the past - definitely an unhealthy thing in my book, and it rarely seems to work out.

I realize that some people do cling to the past. And my mother has been accused of this on many occasions. But she would say that her commitment was made before God. She says that she clings to her God, by faith, not to the past, and not to her runaway husband. Because she believes in the God of the scriptures, she trusts Him to help her with such a promise. She has shared with me several times how she sometimes feels it would be easy just to give up and forget about him, and marry another. It's not an easy path at times. But there are other times when she says that she would rather be doing what she knows is God's will for her then any possible alternative, including marital happiness. For she says that true happiness cannot be compared to the happiness that comes from ideal circumstances.....that true happiness alone comes from God, and cannot be derived from possessions, relationship, family, wealth, or anything else. I think she has a very good point. Not only that, but I have observed her develop into a loving and beautiful person. I doubt clinging to the past would do that.



What are you trying to say? That rich people don't need to eat? Everyone needs to eat - rich or poor, young or old, male or female, black or white, good or bad - you name it. The motives of the priests who made up such nonsense were definitely not good.


Of course everyone needs to eat. But when we eat more meat than we need, waste it when we have satisfied our appetite, and have no regard for the live of the animal from which it was taken, we are certainly in no position to judge those Hebrews. They would have respected animal life, otherwise they would not have used animal sacrifices as the most precious 'thing' in their possession to offer to God. Rather than despising animal life. They would have respected it, most likely far more than we modern humans today.


I have no problem with you, Bruarong. In fact, I rather enjoy our little debates. The problem is those aggressive Fundamentalist type Christians who think it is their duty to convert me. They're all too prevalent.


I enjoy these debates also. I don't go along with aggressive tactics. It's never right to do wrong in order to do right. Neither can a person be forced to love God. However, I love to see people invite Jesus into their lives and begin the most life changing adventure of all time. And I love to talk about my most favourite topic with my friends, so long as they are genuinely interested. I do try to shut up, though, the moment I get the hint. But for me, it's not a duty. It's a passion.


That's like blaming the victims of abuse for what happened to them. God has no excuse for behaving that way - he should definitely know better.


I don't see it that way. I think most abuse victims are innocent, and have no idea of any danger until it happens. The people who rebelled against God, however, made it clear that they were deliberately ignoring the warning from God, despite the words of the prophets who made it clear to them. That hardly places them in the same situation as abuse victims.


I didn't notice when we had switched from discussing Jesus's attitude toward women to Paul's version of Christianity. (Although Paul's attitudes toward women are kind of a mixed bag as well.) I think Paul's point in this was to help men to rule over their wives, and he knew that such a pill would go down easier with a bit of sugar. Anyway, I generally see more equality between the sexes in nature (although certainly not always).


My reading of the Gospels tells me that Jesus could hardly have been more radical in his treatment of women. It seems as though he had as much time for them as for men. Consistent with his claim to be God, he would have seen people as people (made in the image of God, and worthy of a great deal of respect), and not divided according to their gender.

As for Paul, I don't find him suggesting that men should rule over their wives. The men were to have the leadership of the marriage. But given that they were to be devoted to loving their wives, and putting her needs above his own, that would look nothing like the average marriage today. Indeed, I try to love my wife in such a manner. Having the leadership simply means that I have the responsibility to be the first to talk after a fight, to forgive first, to apologise first, and to serve first, and yes, even to listen first. And if I have the last say, it will be in her best interests, before my own.


Interesting. Do you ever see either confirmation or contradictions of your religious beliefs in your work? Do you ever feel you were led to the type of work you do to help you make such connections?

The pursuit of science involves a great deal of reading literature. Literature consists of the opinions of people. People are not objective. Thus my initial study of science revealed a lot of opinions that supported evolution, and the underlying message of 'we don't need God to work miracles anymore, we have evolution'. This was a rather difficult time for me. I loved God, and yet when presented with what I thought was the facts, I was having a hard time trying to hang on to both God and science. It sparked off a search for a resolution, a journey that continues today. In the last several years, I have become increasingly skeptical about the opinions of other scientists, as I have seen just how subjective they can be. When reporting the facts, for example, it's not hard to leave out some details just to make your story all the more convincing.
As for my own personal research, I have never found so much as a shred of data that even supports evolution over creation, though of course, I have been looking for it. On the other hand, I am not objective either, and cannot be. However, I have found quite a lot that would appear to support intelligent design.

Jesus cannot be Messiah, because Messiah will be from the house of David, and sit on the throne of David.

While Jesus MIGHT qualify for the 'house of David', he is also listed as being of the line of Jeconiah... who's line is FORBIDDEN from ever sitting on David's throne.

Thus, the math is simple: Jesus cannont be messiah.

Grave, why don't you look at the prophecy? Jeremiah 22 (NLT)

"And as surely as I live," says the LORD, "I will abandon you, Jehoiachin[e] son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah. Even if you were the signet ring on my right hand, I would pull you off. 25 I will hand you over to those who seek to kill you, of whom you are so desperately afraid--to King Nebuchadnezzar[f] of Babylon and the mighty Babylonian[g] army. 26 I will expel you and your mother from this land, and you will die in a foreign country. 27You will never again return to the land of your desire.
28 "Why is this man Jehoiachin like a discarded, broken dish? Why are he and his children to be exiled to distant lands? 29 O earth, earth, earth! Listen to this message from the LORD! 30 This is what the LORD says: Let the record show that this man Jehoiachin was childless, for none of his children will ever sit on the throne of David to rule in Judah. His life will amount to nothing."

The prophecy is not saying that this man will not have children, and that his children will not have children, and that eventually one of his descendents will be Joseph, the husband of Mary. It is saying that Jehoiachin's children will never sit on the throne in Judah. It suggests that his choices were so bad that it meant that his life amounted to nothing. It's not a comment on the messianic royalty of the Christ.

Grave, why don't you look at the prophecy? Jeremiah 22 (NLT)

"And as surely as I live," says the LORD, "I will abandon you, Jehoiachin[e] son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah. Even if you were the signet ring on my right hand, I would pull you off. 25 I will hand you over to those who seek to kill you, of whom you are so desperately afraid--to King Nebuchadnezzar[f] of Babylon and the mighty Babylonian[g] army. 26 I will expel you and your mother from this land, and you will die in a foreign country. 27You will never again return to the land of your desire.
28 "Why is this man Jehoiachin like a discarded, broken dish? Why are he and his children to be exiled to distant lands? 29 O earth, earth, earth! Listen to this message from the LORD! 30 This is what the LORD says: Let the record show that this man Jehoiachin was childless, for none of his children will ever sit on the throne of David to rule in Judah. His life will amount to nothing."

The prophecy is not saying that this man will not have children, and that his children will not have children, and that eventually one of his descendents will be Joseph, the husband of Mary. It is saying that Jehoiachin's children will never sit on the throne in Judah. It suggests that his choices were so bad that it meant that his life amounted to nothing. It's not a comment on the messianic royalty of the Christ.

Of course it isn't saying he'll have no children - but it DOES explicitly say that NONE of his descendents can sit on the throne of David.

Trace the geneologies, and you'll see that Jesus is a scion of Jeconiah... and thus - can NEVER sit on David's throne. And THUS, cannot be 'Messiah'.

[QUOTE=Mikheilistan]Hell was created for those who rebel against God. For humans to have free will means they have the option to rebel against God, which they chose. You cant have free will and make it impossible to sin.

If you are rebelling against God, surely you don't believe in him, and therefore there is no consequence to hell as you don't believe in it. So how is hell a punishment for those who don't believe? its not, its to try and scare people who believe that God is true to follow his word without doubt or they will go to hell. The fact that there is more than one religion in the world surely points out that they are man made otherwise if there really was an omnipresent God we would all believe in the same one or at least variations of the same thesis. This is not the case.

This is obviously my own opinion and I do not wish to deminish anyones beliefs but i'm afraid theres more chance of us being created by Aliens than some all knowing, all seeing God.

Of course it isn't saying he'll have no children - but it DOES explicitly say that NONE of his descendents can sit on the throne of David.

Trace the geneologies, and you'll see that Jesus is a scion of Jeconiah... and thus - can NEVER sit on David's throne. And THUS, cannot be 'Messiah'.

Your ignoring what is said to be Jesus' true descendancy, as Joseph is not his father and he is not one of the descendants of Jeconiah. He is the son of God who gave him life in Mary.

It's funny that to prove your point, you forget another aspect of Christianity (Immaculate conception) which has faced such scrutany by all non-believers down the years.

I'm not a Christian, but you could atleast make your "contradictions" to their faith consistent to their actual beliefs.

Bruarong,

This is just a quick note to let you know I will not be able to participate fully in these conversations anymore. Things have changed at work, and they just came out with a new policy that says we can only use the internet strictly for business (even when we're still on our own time) and that our internet usage will be monitored and reported to our managers. So I've decided that from now on, I will eat my breakfast at home and go into work at my regular starting time. It is very difficult to post from home because I have an ultra-slow dial-up connection at home (26.4), and so this website is particularly difficult to use from home. I'm posting from home right now, and I've had nothing but problems so far just trying to get this far. We'll see if this will post at all. Anyway, I've got to leave now if I hope to make it to work by 6:30. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to respond more this weekend (though I kind of doubt it, since my high school reunion is this weekend). I don't typically get home from work early enough to get a post in before bedtime, so it looks like my participation will be limited to weekends only. Ugh!

Anyway, I've enjoyed the conversation we've had up until now, and I didn't want you to think I had just bailed on you. Gotta run now.

~Pterodonia

Your ignoring what is said to be Jesus' true descendancy, as Joseph is not his father and he is not one of the descendants of Jeconiah. He is the son of God who gave him life in Mary.

It's funny that to prove your point, you forget another aspect of Christianity (Immaculate conception) which has faced such scrutany by all non-believers down the years.

I'm not a Christian, but you could atleast make your "contradictions" to their faith consistent to their actual beliefs.

Okay - this made me laugh...

You KNOW that the Hebrews passed their titles through the patrilineal side, and yet you mock me for following the Jeconiah line to assert Jeconiah in the heritage...

And yet, you still think that Jesus can sit on the throne of David - after you just excised him from David's line?

While I'm at it, though - since the two biblical accounts of Jesus' lineage do not agree, who do you believe the OTHER lineage comes through? From Mary?

Let us assume it MUST be Mary - because otherwise Jesus has NO claim to the throne of David, AT ALL.

Then , Jesus is STILL exempted from the throne - because that OTHER lineage shows that Jesus derives from the line of Salathiel, and Zorobabel... who are of the line of Jeconiah.

But - even ASIDE from Jeconiah, Jesus could not have been Messiah because of ANOTHER lineage faux-pas.

First Chronicles claims that Messiah will be from Solomon's line... and yet the Luke lineage clearly says that Jesus derives from Nathan's line... the WRONG line.


And, let's not forget, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Messiah to 'change the laws' of the Hebrews.... the Christian assertion that there is a 'new covenant' is in direct contravention to the promises God made to the Hebrews:

Deuteronomy 13:1-4 "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul... Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him".

The Old Testament clearly says that anyone that matches Jesus' description is a FALSE PROPHET. Which means, of course, that the Messianic prophecies are merely being 'used' by a false prophet... not 'messiah'.

And - of course, since the Hebrews taught that ALL 'prophecy' could only occur while Israel is home to the MAJORITY of the world's Jewry - Jesus missed out on being a genuine prophet to Israel by about 350 years - which is when the last of the TRUE prophets (e.g. Malachi) lived.

I'd really like to see how you explain it, to be honest.

Its a little irrelevant, but technically everyone is going to hell. So no one needs to worry about what god did, because you're not conna be seeing him anytime soon.

There is - well, there are many of them, actually: church, government, society, schools, the media, parents, peers, etc. As individuals, we are programmed by our experiences in this life, particularly when we are young and impressionable. And our species is programmed by its collective experience, which allows us to learn what works out best for our survival and what doesn't. Those who don't figure it out don't get to pass on their genes to the next generation.


Except that now we have social welfare, modern medicine, support groups, churches, etc., that help people to survive. How many times have you seen the local community church on the corner helping that poor mother feed all those hungry kids. See, that is the heartbeat of humanity. The people who 'haven't got it figured out' are all those intellectuals who simply refuse to have children. They are liberated from the old fashioned ideas of having kids. Or if they do have kids, they have about 1 point 4 (I think that is the going statistic in Germany).


And yet we have evolved into what we are now in our attempt to survive as a species. That's just the way it works. Those of us who have survived are generally those who had the best survival strategies. This doesn't always translate to cut-throat behavior, by the way. In fact, it often means learning to cooperate with others. Perhaps this is where you're getting confused?

My argument is that the survival of the community is most successful when it isn't the primary goal of the individual. I suppose that is a point you and I could agree upon. Where we disagree is why this is true. I say it's because loving your neighbour is what God wanted us to do, and when we do what is right, we enjoy the benefits, and survive a whole lot better. You say it is because only those who learned to get along with one another are the ones who survived, because those who don't get along don't survive. The problem is that the world is full of people who don't get along. Instead of natural selection selecting for nice lovely people who all get along and help one another, we have a world full of wars. The last hundred years has possibly seen more wars than any other 100 years. If natural selection is supposed to explain the phenomenon of love that occurs in the human species, it fails to explain how so much hatred has survived. I mean, couldn't we survive better without racism, religious intolerance, etc?


Or at least that's what the not-so-guileless Paul claimed, according to Acts 20:35. Unfortunately, it seems that all four gospel writers had overlooked this gem when they recorded the words of Jesus.


Quite so. This I had not noticed before. However, it doesn't pose a problem, since it is clear that the Gospel writers left out a good deal of all that Jesus said and did. The apostle Paul, however, claimed to have personal contact with Jesus, and apparently communed with the Spirit of God. We Christians certainly believe he was inspired to write the letters included in the NT. This would mean that he had more knowledge of Jesus than just from the Gospels.



Okay - as long as you are willing to allow that it is possible that he was being deliberately deceptive.

Fair enough. But when matched up to the rest of the accounts of Jesus, this appears unlikely, since the same author wrote these words in I John 1:5: This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

And in John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

And in John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

It looks like John clearly considered that Jesus was free from sin.



But our own selfish desire to survive is exactly what keeps our species going. I do agree, though, that if we are too selfish as a species, we will overuse the planet's resources and eventually doom ourselves. Then Nature will have to start on a new evolutionary path using whatever material is left, and hopefully it will work out better the next time. Of course, had we paid closer attention to Nature and her messages to us, this might have been avoided.


So we are to be a little selfish, but not too selfish. Who's to know just where the fine line is? Survival instinct will keep us alive, and kill us all in the end.
Of course we all have an instinct to survive, much like the animals. But being human means we are able to see the difference between survival instinct and a survival instinct that gets out of hand (e.g., the lust for wealth and power). We recognise this as evil. E.g. most people would consider Hitler's lust for power as evil. (I keep using Hitler as an example, not because I have a personal vendetta against him, but that he is a recognised example of a bad guy. Though no doubt he had his good points, being human.) The survival instinct does not have to go evil. In fact, I suspect survival is precisely why some people fall to their knees and pray during their times of greatest desperation. From that point, they have the opportunity to get to know God in a personal way (the message of the Bible), and end up being motivated by love for Him, rather than a desire to survive. This is what I reckon Jesus was referring to as real life, eternal life.

For me, the messages from Nature are a confirmation of this. Everywhere I look I see beauty, albeit a marred beauty. I see the handiwork of God everywhere, and it seems to shout praise to the Maker, and an invitation for me to do likewise.



When I was married to my first husband, we lived in an apartment with no furniture at all for about a year. We had to sleep on a foam pad, with one blanket to put down on the pad and one to cover up with. We lived in a city that was cold and rainy. For the most part, we were living on my piddly income of less than $400 a month. Then he started cheating on me, and later started beating up on me when I was pregnant with my first child. He refused to work, and when I could no longer work, he decided that we would just go on welfare. Well, the first check came in his name, and guess what? He ran off with it for 3 days. When he came back, all the money was gone and there was nothing left to pay rent with. By the time I was 7 months pregnant, I was facing homelessness, and consequently, the possible loss of my child. That's when my parents came up from another state, with a shotgun, and rescued me from that situation.

I won't say that this didn't upset me at all - it most certainly did. And I won't tell you that I didn't spend a little bit of time feeling sorry for myself - I did my share of that, too - but not for long. My mother was a nightmare in her own way, to the point where I sometimes wondered if homelessness might not have been the better choice. But at least I was able to keep my child and get back on my feet. By the time my son was 5 months old, I had another job and an apartment of my own. And that's where I met my present husband, who was the mailman on my route. The rest, as they say, is history.


Sounds like you do know what depression is like. At least you certainly would know what it is like when the chips are down. That's what I call human suffering. You know, I often look at those homeless people, and wonder what their lives were like. Full of suffering and brokeness, no doubt. Although many of them claim to prefer that sort of lifestyle. Maybe they do, but perhaps that means their former life was hell (as you described) so that the present circumstance is preferrable, or that there really is something about that sort of lifestyle that I cannot see. Any other possibilities?


And where was God the Mother in all of this? Is she the one you call the Holy Ghost? Is this what is meant when it says that men were created in their image, male and female? If so, this is one of the few parts of the bible that might actually make some sense.


:) The mysterious third member of the trinity. Is it male or female? I think the Orthodox church considers it a male. I once saw a picture of 'him' in one of their churches in Russia--a bearded man. But I don't see that in the Bible. All of the trinity are referred to as 'he', but perhaps not because they were males, but because of the convention of using 'he'. Furthermore, using 'she' would hardly have been an improvement, certainly not in those male dominated cultures of Abraham's day. I think most theologians see God as above male or female gender, but rather the source of both.
Jesus was certainly a male here on earth. But before he came to earth, I suppose he was neither male or female. He taught us to refer to God as Father, but perhaps that's because referring to him as Mother would cause the same problems as calling Him 'Her'. I think it's important to remember that God is very big, much bigger than the current limitations in our minds. And when we die, we will perhaps be no longer male or female. Jesus said there was no marriage in heaven, but that we will be as the angels. Reproduction will no longer be necessary, and the pleasures will make sex look positively boring. (Though I guess many of my friends would say it's the closest thing to heaven on earth--kinda funny.)

I have no problem with Nature being referred to as 'her', though, in the same way that God is above gender, so with nature. She consists of male and female, but in reality, is neither, or more likely, both.

To answer your question, God the Mother and God the Father are the same person.



No more confusing than the Christian concept of Jesus being both God and the son of God. :)

Yeah, that part is confusing when you try to make it strictly adhere to the human version. It just doesn't work. But I makes more sense to me when I see it as an analogy, a sort of quick reference, but loaded with meaning.

Okay - this made me laugh...

You KNOW that the Hebrews passed their titles through the patrilineal side, and yet you mock me for following the Jeconiah line to assert Jeconiah in the heritage...

And yet, you still think that Jesus can sit on the throne of David - after you just excised him from David's line?

Not quite.


While I'm at it, though - since the two biblical accounts of Jesus' lineage do not agree, who do you believe the OTHER lineage comes through? From Mary?

Let us assume it MUST be Mary - because otherwise Jesus has NO claim to the throne of David, AT ALL.

Then , Jesus is STILL exempted from the throne - because that OTHER lineage shows that Jesus derives from the line of Salathiel, and Zorobabel... who are of the line of Jeconiah.

But - even ASIDE from Jeconiah, Jesus could not have been Messiah because of ANOTHER lineage faux-pas.

First Chronicles claims that Messiah will be from Solomon's line... and yet the Luke lineage clearly says that Jesus derives from Nathan's line... the WRONG line.

So here we have an apparent contradiction. God has decreed that none of the descendents of Jehoiachin will EVER sit on the throne of David or rule in Judah, but the prophecies in 2 Samuel and Luke say the opposite! The problem can be resolved, though, when one realizes that the curse placed on Jehoiachin and his descendents was a blood curse. In other words, the curse would only apply to the physical offspring of Jehoiachin.

We should now look at the genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke. In studying them, we must remember the different viewpoints of the Gospel writers. Matthew was from the tribe of Levi, and thus always perceived things through the Jewish Law. His Gospel focuses on the Kingship of Christ and how Jesus is the Son of David. There are more citations of prophecy being fulfilled in Matthew (over 100 quotes from the Old Testament) than any other Gospel. Because of this, Matthew starts his genealogy of Jesus at Abraham; the first Jew. He then takes us through David and Solomon, and follows the succession of kings, listing Jeconiah (Coniah or Jehoiachin) until he gets to Joseph.

Luke, however, has a very different interest. He is a physician, and was raised in a Greek society. His viewpoint of the Christ as well as his target audience was very different. He is interested in the humanity of Jesus. Luke constantly uses the title "Son of Man" in reference to the Christ. Being a physician, he notes things like the great drops of blood Jesus sweat in Gethsemane; physical symptoms we don't read elsewhere. His genealogy of Jesus starts not with Abraham, but with Adam, the first man. He also follows the births through Abraham and David, but then does something unexpected. Instead of taking the kingly line, Luke chooses Nathan, another of David's sons, and follows their lineage until he arrives at Eli, who is the father of Mary. You'll notice that verse 23 states "Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli." The Greek words used here imply that this assumption is not accurate. In other words, the sentence could read that people thought Him to be offspring of Joseph, but He was physically from Eli's lineage through his mother. The idea of Eli being the father of Mary is found in documents by various early church fathers who held the view, as well as a passage in the Jewish Talmud that states, "Mary, the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures..." So, though the Bible doesn't explicitly say that Eli was Mary's father, it implies such, and other early writings confirm this opinion.

What we must realize is two Old Testament legal technicalities come into play here. The first is that an adopted son can inherit all the rights and privileges that would be available to a natural son. In Genesis 15 verse 2, Abram lamented the fact that he had no natural son to inherit his estate, and it would fall to his chief servant Eliezar. This passage shows how all the rights and rank of a house can be transferred to a non-blood relative. Also, we read in Genesis chapter 48 that Israel adopted Joseph's two sons, Ephriam and Manassah. They were now to be considered equal with Joseph's brothers in inheriting the promises given to Israel and each of them were entitled to an equal portion of the land.

Jesus was an adopted son of Joseph, not a natural son. Because of this, he was legally entitled to David's throne and the blood curse did not apply. However, David was promised a natural heir. By looking at the genealogy of Mary we see that Jesus had direct human ancestry to King David through Nathan. This fact allows for another law of inheritance to be exercised, one found in the writings of Moses.

In Numbers 27:6-11 we read of the daughters of Zelophehad, who were the only heirs of their father. Because there were no males born to the family, the inheritance of Zelophehad would be passed to his daughters and to their offspring. If there were no children to inherit, the nearest living relative would be entitled to the inheritance. Jesus was a son of David through Mary and entitled to all the benefits of the house of Eli. Because Johoiachin was counted as childless, none of that line was entitled to David's throne, so the inheritance was to be transferred to a near kinsman. Jesus not only was entitled to the throne through adoption, but also as a kinsman redeemer of the Davidic line.

So the promise that the Messiah would be of the house of David, as well and David's throne would be everlasting takes on a more clear meaning. Jesus was legally entitled to the throne of David, being the oldest son of Joseph, but was subject to none of the consequences of the blood curse because He was adopted. He was also a direct descendant of King David, and therefore in the lineage of the king. Because all Jewish genealogies are to be reckoned from the father to the son, Luke lists Joseph as the assumed father of Jesus, however he becomes the heir of that line through the rule established with the daughters of Zelophehad. So no contradiction really exists, just a remarkably precise fulfillment of prophecy.

As for the prophecy taking place outside of a time where the world's majority of Jewry inhabits Israel, I don't know exactly.
But I feel it's not the 'Israel' as in the actual land used that is spoken of.

I'll elaborate on what I mean later, but right now I have to return to work.

Bruarong,

This is just a quick note to let you know I will not be able to participate fully in these conversations anymore. Things have changed at work, and they just came out with a new policy that says we can only use the internet strictly for business (even when we're still on our own time) and that our internet usage will be monitored and reported to our managers. So I've decided that from now on, I will eat my breakfast at home and go into work at my regular starting time. It is very difficult to post from home because I have an ultra-slow dial-up connection at home (26.4), and so this website is particularly difficult to use from home. I'm posting from home right now, and I've had nothing but problems so far just trying to get this far. We'll see if this will post at all. Anyway, I've got to leave now if I hope to make it to work by 6:30. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to respond more this weekend (though I kind of doubt it, since my high school reunion is this weekend). I don't typically get home from work early enough to get a post in before bedtime, so it looks like my participation will be limited to weekends only. Ugh!

Anyway, I've enjoyed the conversation we've had up until now, and I didn't want you to think I had just bailed on you. Gotta run now.

~Pterodonia

OK Pterodonia. No problems. We'll just take it slower. Don't work too hard.

Not quite.

So here we have an apparent contradiction. God has decreed that none of the descendents of Jehoiachin will EVER sit on the throne of David or rule in Judah, but the prophecies in 2 Samuel and Luke say the opposite! The problem can be resolved, though, when one realizes that the curse placed on Jehoiachin and his descendents was a blood curse. In other words, the curse would only apply to the physical offspring of Jehoiachin.

We should now look at the genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke. In studying them, we must remember the different viewpoints of the Gospel writers. Matthew was from the tribe of Levi, and thus always perceived things through the Jewish Law. His Gospel focuses on the Kingship of Christ and how Jesus is the Son of David. There are more citations of prophecy being fulfilled in Matthew (over 100 quotes from the Old Testament) than any other Gospel. Because of this, Matthew starts his genealogy of Jesus at Abraham; the first Jew. He then takes us through David and Solomon, and follows the succession of kings, listing Jeconiah (Coniah or Jehoiachin) until he gets to Joseph.

Luke, however, has a very different interest. He is a physician, and was raised in a Greek society. His viewpoint of the Christ as well as his target audience was very different. He is interested in the humanity of Jesus. Luke constantly uses the title "Son of Man" in reference to the Christ. Being a physician, he notes things like the great drops of blood Jesus sweat in Gethsemane; physical symptoms we don't read elsewhere. His genealogy of Jesus starts not with Abraham, but with Adam, the first man. He also follows the births through Abraham and David, but then does something unexpected. Instead of taking the kingly line, Luke chooses Nathan, another of David's sons, and follows their lineage until he arrives at Eli, who is the father of Mary. You'll notice that verse 23 states "Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli." The Greek words used here imply that this assumption is not accurate. In other words, the sentence could read that people thought Him to be offspring of Joseph, but He was physically from Eli's lineage through his mother. The idea of Eli being the father of Mary is found in documents by various early church fathers who held the view, as well as a passage in the Jewish Talmud that states, "Mary, the daughter of Heli was seen in the infernal regions, suffering horrid tortures..." So, though the Bible doesn't explicitly say that Eli was Mary's father, it implies such, and other early writings confirm this opinion.

What we must realize is two Old Testament legal technicalities come into play here. The first is that an adopted son can inherit all the rights and privileges that would be available to a natural son. In Genesis 15 verse 2, Abram lamented the fact that he had no natural son to inherit his estate, and it would fall to his chief servant Eliezar. This passage shows how all the rights and rank of a house can be transferred to a non-blood relative. Also, we read in Genesis chapter 48 that Israel adopted Joseph's two sons, Ephriam and Manassah. They were now to be considered equal with Joseph's brothers in inheriting the promises given to Israel and each of them were entitled to an equal portion of the land.

Jesus was an adopted son of Joseph, not a natural son. Because of this, he was legally entitled to David's throne and the blood curse did not apply. However, David was promised a natural heir. By looking at the genealogy of Mary we see that Jesus had direct human ancestry to King David through Nathan. This fact allows for another law of inheritance to be exercised, one found in the writings of Moses.

In Numbers 27:6-11 we read of the daughters of Zelophehad, who were the only heirs of their father. Because there were no males born to the family, the inheritance of Zelophehad would be passed to his daughters and to their offspring. If there were no children to inherit, the nearest living relative would be entitled to the inheritance. Jesus was a son of David through Mary and entitled to all the benefits of the house of Eli. Because Johoiachin was counted as childless, none of that line was entitled to David's throne, so the inheritance was to be transferred to a near kinsman. Jesus not only was entitled to the throne through adoption, but also as a kinsman redeemer of the Davidic line.

So the promise that the Messiah would be of the house of David, as well and David's throne would be everlasting takes on a more clear meaning. Jesus was legally entitled to the throne of David, being the oldest son of Joseph, but was subject to none of the consequences of the blood curse because He was adopted. He was also a direct descendant of King David, and therefore in the lineage of the king. Because all Jewish genealogies are to be reckoned from the father to the son, Luke lists Joseph as the assumed father of Jesus, however he becomes the heir of that line through the rule established with the daughters of Zelophehad. So no contradiction really exists, just a remarkably precise fulfillment of prophecy.

As for the prophecy taking place outside of a time where the world's majority of Jewry inhabits Israel, I don't know exactly.
But I feel it's not the 'Israel' as in the actual land used that is spoken of.

I'll elaborate on what I mean later, but right now I have to return to work.

I commend your attempts to 'wriggle' out of it... but that is ALL they are, I'm afraid- you show no 'substance' to support anything.

So - where is your evidence for a 'blood curse'? Boons and Banes in the scripture pass through the patrilineal side, and CAN be adopted. Where is the scripture that specificies that the Jeconiah curse would not affect adopted sons?

Where is your support for Luke 'choosing' Nathan? You don't get to 'choose' who your ancestors are - either Nathan WAS Jesus' precedent, or he wasn't.

Where is your evidence to support Eli (Heli) as Mary's father? The (Apocryphal) Gospel of James gives Mary's parents as Anna and Joachim... and the Gospel of Luke specifies Joseph, NOT Mary... two obstacles to overcome, for which you have no real evidence.

You pick and choose which parts of scripture you want, and you cobble together fictions to cover the gaps. I see no SCRIPTURAL support for any of your claims... so I have to assume that is all you are doing - explaining away uncomfortable contradictions with extrapolation and deliberate misreading.

I commend your attempts to 'wriggle' out of it... but that is ALL they are, I'm afraid- you show no 'substance' to support anything.

I'm not a Christian pal, so I don't need to wriggle out of anything. I am simply debating with you the contradictions which are apparent in the bible (or the lack of them as the case may be) from how I understand the bible's concepts and doctrines.

If you do in fact find a hole that there isn't atleast a possible explanation for, then it's not my entire belief structure you will be dismantling. And I will in fact thank you for giving me the knowledge of this gap of reasoning.

But I feel you argue your stance too agressively to really feel secure with it.

So - where is your evidence for a 'blood curse'? Boons and Banes in the scripture pass through the patrilineal side, and CAN be adopted. Where is the scripture that specificies that the Jeconiah curse would not affect adopted sons?

Do I have to explain how I percieve a 'blood curse' actually works?

I thought it was explained with the phrase 'the fruits of his loins'.

Where is your support for Luke 'choosing' Nathan? You don't get to 'choose' who your ancestors are - either Nathan WAS Jesus' precedent, or he wasn't.

Where is your evidence to support Eli (Heli) as Mary's father? The (Apocryphal) Gospel of James gives Mary's parents as Anna and Joachim... and the Gospel of Luke specifies Joseph, NOT Mary... two obstacles to overcome, for which you have no real evidence.

You pick and choose which parts of scripture you want, and you cobble together fictions to cover the gaps. I see no SCRIPTURAL support for any of your claims... so I have to assume that is all you are doing - explaining away uncomfortable contradictions with extrapolation and deliberate misreading.

He doesn't just 'choose' Nathan to be his ancestor just because he wants to. He chose to negate Joseph as Jesus' biological root simply because he wasn't his father, which then means Jesus is not of David's descent. If Immaculate conception his to be believed (and should be for the current moment in time simply because it's consistent with all other Christian beliefs we are considering) then the closest male descendant was from Mary's family. That family tree goes back to Nathan as being the only tie to David, but doesn't mean that Jesus was from 'the fruits of his [David] loins'.

What is so often the case in these controversies is that people always tend to look at things from their own perspective, instead of from the scriptural reference and historical Biblical perspective. Contributing to the difficulty in understanding the genealogical passage in Luke is the way that the Greek has been translated into english. There really is no mystery, nor contradiction, nor inconsistency. There simply is a modern lack of understanding of the Biblical system of reference, what is being said, and why it is said that way.

Luke 3:23

"And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.."
The novice should take care to note that there are no parenthesis in the original Greek text. These parenthesis were put there by the translators. Unfortunately, they were put in the wrong place. "Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, which was the son of Heli," is the statement. While, "being as was supposed the son of Joseph," is the interjection, and thus what should have been put in parenthesis as the qualifying comment of the passage. In other words, the verse should read like this:


"And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, (being as was supposed the son of Joseph)

which was the son of Eli...
This clearly says, "Jesus, which was the Son of Eli," which was the son of Matthat. See the distinction here? The phrase (being as supposed the Son of Joseph) is simply the interjection. This is what belongs in parentheses and in no way should be read as Joseph was the Son of Heli (Eli). Joseph is not the son of Heli, Heli was Mary's father, making Jesus the Son of Heli. To prove this, you need only remove the interjection and you have the 'clear' understanding of what is written.

As for Mary's parents. The name of Mary's father, Heli, agrees with the name given to her father in a tradition founded upon the report of the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel which dates from the end of the second century. According to this document the parents of Mary are Joachim and Anna. Now, the name Joachim is only a variation of Heli or Eliachim, substituting one Divine name (Yahweh) for the other (Eli, Elohim). The tradition as to the parents of Mary, found in the Gospel of James, is reproduced by St. John Damascene, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Germanus of Constantinople, pseudo-Epiphanius, pseudo-Hilarius, and St. Fulbert of Chartres. Some of these writers add that the birth of Mary was obtained by the fervent prayers of Joachim and Anna in their advanced age. As Joachim belonged to the royal family of David, so Anna is supposed to have been a descendant of the priestly family of Aaron; thus Christ sprang from both a royal and priestly family according to his actual blood-lines.

As for the statements at the end of your post..... I won't try to reverse it as being how I feel about you at this current time. I think you are possibly in the same boat as myself and a lot of other people; as I am merely trying to understand anything to the best of my ability. Be it natural laws of science or the concepts of a religious text.

I don't believe that should the bible be a internally consistent piece of text, that this means that you trace that consistency to every other level of existence. It exists on the page and is consistent on the page.
But it's funny that not only do Christians and people of other faith still believe that if their religious text is internally consistent, that this means that it is all consistent with what is external to it aswell....... but the science community no longer realises that if their religious text is consistent, they can just say 'so what?'.

[QUOTE=Accumulatia]I'm not a Christian pal, so I don't need to wriggle out of anything. I am simply debating with you the contradictions which are apparent in the bible (or the lack of them as the case may be) from how I understand the bible's concepts and doctrines.

[QUOTE]


Struth! I have never seen the geneology of Jesus explained that way. I think you make a number of good points. I think your reasoning is sound. Although your explanations cannot be demonstrated to be true (e.g. placing the parenthesis in another place to give Jesus a different parent), they do make a lot of sense.

One wonders where you learned this stuff. And if you are not a Christian, why would you be interested in learning it anyway?

It seems to me you don't know how omniscience works. God knew if you were Hell bound before your great to the 100th power grand parents were ever born.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holy Santo
The logic is not faulty, but your understanding of it is. God doesn’t create people to go to hell people choose their own destiny.

Also traducianism states that the soul comes into existence at conception and is in some way passed on by its parents in other words; soulish potentialities are contained in the parents’ egg and sperm. To put it simply you would not be the person you are if one or both or of your parents were different people. That means the only way God can make me is if my entire ancestral lineage had preceded me, because different grandparents mean different parents and thus different materials for the soul.

So God would not just weigh individuals but he must weigh entire ancestral chains, so it may be that God allows some chains to come about with some in them that will choose hell but which allow for others to be born who will trust God. (JP Moreland) </Quote>

I never said or even implied that God doesn’t know who is and isn’t bound for where, the whole theory of traducianism is dependent on the fact that God knows such things. The theory simply states that because the Individual is dependent upon his ancestral loins for being. It’s the back to the future effect; if you parents don’t get married and have sex then you don’t exist. So that means if God decides not to allow one man to exist because he’s bound for hell then he also denies the existence of the children he would have produce and so on and so forth. In this process God may in fact not create a person going to hell but by doing so he may indeed not create more people who were “homeward bound.”

Read carefully and understand fully before you make any assertions.

I commend your attempts to 'wriggle' out of it... but that is ALL they are, I'm afraid- you show no 'substance' to support anything.

So - where is your evidence for a 'blood curse'? Boons and Banes in the scripture pass through the patrilineal side, and CAN be adopted. Where is the scripture that specificies that the Jeconiah curse would not affect adopted sons?

Where is your support for Luke 'choosing' Nathan? You don't get to 'choose' who your ancestors are - either Nathan WAS Jesus' precedent, or he wasn't.

Where is your evidence to support Eli (Heli) as Mary's father? The (Apocryphal) Gospel of James gives Mary's parents as Anna and Joachim... and the Gospel of Luke specifies Joseph, NOT Mary... two obstacles to overcome, for which you have no real evidence.

You pick and choose which parts of scripture you want, and you cobble together fictions to cover the gaps. I see no SCRIPTURAL support for any of your claims... so I have to assume that is all you are doing - explaining away uncomfortable contradictions with extrapolation and deliberate misreading.

Heck, Grave, and I always thought you were a nice guy. What happened to your manners? Is there really any need to be that aggressive?

Okay - this made me laugh...


....Deuteronomy 13:1-4 "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul... Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him".

The Old Testament clearly says that anyone that matches Jesus' description is a FALSE PROPHET. Which means, of course, that the Messianic prophecies are merely being 'used' by a false prophet... not 'messiah'.


Mmhm... I especially like this part: "Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;" Wanna know why I like that part? Cuz Jesus never called for anyone to follow after other gods. That would be mean a contradiction to all that He taught. So I would agree with you if Jesus had, indeed, called for Jews and Gentiles alike to follow after false gods, but he didn't. And in that case, I can't agree with you at all there. Jesus wasn't a false prophet. He didn't try to lead the people of God astray, which is exactly what God is giving warning for, those who lead them astray. Try again Grave.

I'm not a Christian pal, so I don't need to wriggle out of anything. I am simply debating with you the contradictions which are apparent in the bible (or the lack of them as the case may be) from how I understand the bible's concepts and doctrines.


'Pal'? And me, you think combative?

As far as I know, you were not debating this with me, at all - unless you and 'Exaggero Chimera' are the same person?


If you do in fact find a hole that there isn't atleast a possible explanation for, then it's not my entire belief structure you will be dismantling. And I will in fact thank you for giving me the knowledge of this gap of reasoning.


I find this difficult to rationalise... I can't see why someone with NO vested interest, would attempt to explain scripture by the non-scriptural...


But I feel you argue your stance too agressively to really feel secure with it.


You are welcome to feel however you choose, my friend. It will not keep me up late.

I have people here 'part-answering' my posts... choosing just the elements they think they can fight, and making the most ridiculously unsupportable arguments to back them... and yet it is my 'belief' (interesting, since I've not claimed to HAVE any) that is in question? Curious...


Do I have to explain how I percieve a 'blood curse' actually works?

I thought it was explained with the phrase 'the fruits of his loins'.


No - you just have to explain why you think it applies to Jeconiah, and to his sperm-induced bloodline, but not to his adopted sons (which are identical, under Hebrew law) - or to his descendents through Eli.


He doesn't just 'choose' Nathan to be his ancestor just because he wants to. He chose to negate Joseph as Jesus' biological root simply because he wasn't his father, which then means Jesus is not of David's descent. If Immaculate conception his to be believed (and should be for the current moment in time simply because it's consistent with all other Christian beliefs we are considering) then the closest male descendant was from Mary's family. That family tree goes back to Nathan as being the only tie to David, but doesn't mean that Jesus was from 'the fruits of his [David] loins'.

What is so often the case in these controversies is that people always tend to look at things from their own perspective, instead of from the scriptural reference and historical Biblical perspective. Contributing to the difficulty in understanding the genealogical passage in Luke is the way that the Greek has been translated into english. There really is no mystery, nor contradiction, nor inconsistency. There simply is a modern lack of understanding of the Biblical system of reference, what is being said, and why it is said that way.

Luke 3:23

"And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.."
The novice should take care to note that there are no parenthesis in the original Greek text. These parenthesis were put there by the translators. Unfortunately, they were put in the wrong place. "Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, which was the son of Heli," is the statement. While, "being as was supposed the son of Joseph," is the interjection, and thus what should have been put in parenthesis as the qualifying comment of the passage. In other words, the verse should read like this:


"And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, (being as was supposed the son of Joseph)

which was the son of Eli...
This clearly says, "Jesus, which was the Son of Eli," which was the son of Matthat. See the distinction here? The phrase (being as supposed the Son of Joseph) is simply the interjection. This is what belongs in parentheses and in no way should be read as Joseph was the Son of Heli (Eli). Joseph is not the son of Heli, Heli was Mary's father, making Jesus the Son of Heli. To prove this, you need only remove the interjection and you have the 'clear' understanding of what is written.

As for Mary's parents. The name of Mary's father, Heli, agrees with the name given to her father in a tradition founded upon the report of the Protoevangelium of James, an apocryphal Gospel which dates from the end of the second century. According to this document the parents of Mary are Joachim and Anna. Now, the name Joachim is only a variation of Heli or Eliachim, substituting one Divine name (Yahweh) for the other (Eli, Elohim). The tradition as to the parents of Mary, found in the Gospel of James, is reproduced by St. John Damascene, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Germanus of Constantinople, pseudo-Epiphanius, pseudo-Hilarius, and St. Fulbert of Chartres. Some of these writers add that the birth of Mary was obtained by the fervent prayers of Joachim and Anna in their advanced age. As Joachim belonged to the royal family of David, so Anna is supposed to have been a descendant of the priestly family of Aaron; thus Christ sprang from both a royal and priestly family according to his actual blood-lines.


When you take passages from another site, you are supposed to credit them.

Merely posting the description from a Catholic Encyclopedia, does not count as providing evidence, or making an explanation... especially when it is uncredited as the work of another.


As for the statements at the end of your post..... I won't try to reverse it as being how I feel about you at this current time. I think you are possibly in the same boat as myself and a lot of other people; as I am merely trying to understand anything to the best of my ability. Be it natural laws of science or the concepts of a religious text.


I am a seeker after truth. I haven't found it yet... but I'm not pretending I have.


I don't believe that should the bible be a internally consistent piece of text, that this means that you trace that consistency to every other level of existence. It exists on the page and is consistent on the page.
But it's funny that not only do Christians and people of other faith still believe that if their religious text is internally consistent, that this means that it is all consistent with what is external to it aswell....... but the science community no longer realises that if their religious text is consistent, they can just say 'so what?'.

Or... maybe just 'what?'.

I'm not even sure what religious text the science community has.... re-word, perhaps?

Heck, Grave, and I always thought you were a nice guy. What happened to your manners? Is there really any need to be that aggressive?

Debate is one thing, and I'm happy to do it...

Mmhm... I especially like this part: "Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;" Wanna know why I like that part? Cuz Jesus never called for anyone to follow after other gods. That would be mean a contradiction to all that He taught. So I would agree with you if Jesus had, indeed, called for Jews and Gentiles alike to follow after false gods, but he didn't. And in that case, I can't agree with you at all there. Jesus wasn't a false prophet. He didn't try to lead the people of God astray, which is exactly what God is giving warning for, those who lead them astray. Try again Grave.

Jews (the original 'owners' of the God that the Christians hijacked), feel differently.

They see no consistency between their won God, and the version the New Testament tries to sell.

Or, do all Christians accept that Allah is the logical and same entity as their own god? With all the ramifications that brings?


Thus, as far as the 'god of the Old Testament' is concerned, Jesus IS a false prophet.

Debate is one thing, and I'm happy to do it...

Hey Grave, I have a question for you, if you wouldn't mind helping me out here. You seem to be a person who has been around NS for a while, and maybe you know the answer. Do you see your name 'Grave_n_idle' on the top right hand of your posts? (Assuming your screen is similar to mine.) Right under it is the description 'muppet owner'. Firstly, I am curious as to what the description means. Secondly, how did you put it there, or was it from another? the mods? Recently, I have noticed that my description has gone from 'member' to 'sometimes deadly', though I did nothing to change it. The only thing I can think of is that it is an automated change that conincides with the number of posts made. Is this true? Or is there another explanation?

Hey Grave, I have a question for you, if you wouldn't mind helping me out here. You seem to be a person who has been around NS for a while, and maybe you know the answer. Do you see your name 'Grave_n_idle' on the top right hand of your posts? (Assuming your screen is similar to mine.) Right under it is the description 'muppet owner'. Firstly, I am curious as to what the description means. Secondly, how did you put it there, or was it from another? the mods? Recently, I have noticed that my description has gone from 'member' to 'sometimes deadly', though I did nothing to change it. The only thing I can think of is that it is an automated change that conincides with the number of posts made. Is this true? Or is there another explanation?

Dead right first time, my friend.

The little title is an automated response to the number of posts you have made. Initially the divides are fairly close... I think you get through 3 or 4 names just getting to your first thousand posts... and after that, the gaps between new 'title' seem to get larger.

What do they mean? Who knows... they are usually about 'cyber-something' or 'spam-something'... or words to that KIND of effect... so I think the implication is, the more times you post, the bigger geek you are. Ina good way. :)

If this turns into another 100+ page thread...


Too late! It's half-way there already and still going strong! :p

Jews (the original 'owners' of the God that the Christians hijacked), feel differently.

They see no consistency between their won God, and the version the New Testament tries to sell.

Or, do all Christians accept that Allah is the logical and same entity as their own god? With all the ramifications that brings?


Thus, as far as the 'god of the Old Testament' is concerned, Jesus IS a false prophet.

What do you call a Jew that believes in Jesus as the Messiah? (And before you say they don't exist, they do. I have personally met more than one.)

I have spoken with Jews who do see many similarities between the God of Abraham and the Christian God--Jews that do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. How can you speak so with such authority on the opinions of the Jews? Especially when you should know that they are about as varied in their beliefs as the Christians.

Personally, I see many similarities between Allah and the Father of Jesus. But they differ on the most basic and important of issues. The Christian God is without evil (I John I) and is essentially love. Allah is the source of both evil and good (if I have it right) and is more concerned with justice. Thus I cannot consider that they are one and the same. Neither do I believe that I have hijacked the Jewish God. The God of Abraham accepts people who come to him by faith. That is the argument that the Apostle Paul uses in the book of Romans.

Relegion in a large dose is always bad , finatics give it a bad name. But if you take it in small doses and it helps you live right then thats wat its for.

Dead right first time, my friend.

The little title is an automated response to the number of posts you have made. Initially the divides are fairly close... I think you get through 3 or 4 names just getting to your first thousand posts... and after that, the gaps between new 'title' seem to get larger.

What do they mean? Who knows... they are usually about 'cyber-something' or 'spam-something'... or words to that KIND of effect... so I think the implication is, the more times you post, the bigger geek you are. Ina good way. :)

Vielen dank! Great to hear it from a person who knows. And I dont mind being considered a geek in the company of others who are quite obviously so. I'm still relatively new to all this online chatting, though I'm quickly coming to like it more and more. For example, you can debate the real issues, without worrying about making all the light rubbish talk.

Goodness, that really makes me sound like a geek.

Relegion in a large dose is always bad , finatics give it a bad name. But if you take it in small doses and it helps you live right then thats wat its for.

Perhaps you have a method for determining just how deep one should dip into the pond?

Vielen dank! Great to hear it from a person who knows. And I dont mind being considered a geek in the company of others who are quite obviously so. I'm still relatively new to all this online chatting, though I'm quickly coming to like it more and more. For example, you can debate the real issues, without worrying about making all the light rubbish talk.

Goodness, that really makes me sound like a geek.

:D

I never really cared for the chatrooms thing, but a forum like this often attracts a certain type of mentality that can engage in something more meaningful than online-sexual-liaisons, and insult-fests.

And, in comparison to some of the posters, we are nothing but 'n00bs'. :)

What do you call a Jew that believes in Jesus as the Messiah? (And before you say they don't exist, they do. I have personally met more than one.)

I have spoken with Jews who do see many similarities between the God of Abraham and the Christian God--Jews that do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. How can you speak so with such authority on the opinions of the Jews? Especially when you should know that they are about as varied in their beliefs as the Christians.

Personally, I see many similarities between Allah and the Father of Jesus. But they differ on the most basic and important of issues. The Christian God is without evil (I John I) and is essentially love. Allah is the source of both evil and good (if I have it right) and is more concerned with justice. Thus I cannot consider that they are one and the same. Neither do I believe that I have hijacked the Jewish God. The God of Abraham accepts people who come to him by faith. That is the argument that the Apostle Paul uses in the book of Romans.

Jews who accept Jesus as Messiah are sometimes called 'Jews-for-Jesus'... but, to my mind, they are no longer (religiously) Jews, at all... they are Christians.

I have also met Jews who believe Jesus to be Messiah, and those that feel that the New Testament and Old Testament 'gods' are descriptions of the same entity. But, I have also met a great many that argue against what they perceive as little short of the rape of their religion, by a sect of interlopers.

My own upbringing was a curious one... I was raised by Anglican and Catholic parents - one of whom was 'born' Jewish...

I agree AND disagree about the Allah thing - as far as I can tell, the Bible is quite clear on Jehovah being the 'source' of all things - good AND evil. He even 'sends' evil against people on a number of occassions. And, my Jewish relatives seem to think THAT view of 'god' is much more consistent with THEIR view of a universal originator.

By the way - you can't logically use 'the Apostle Paul' to prove something about the Old Testament view of god....

Dead right first time, my friend.

The little title is an automated response to the number of posts you have made. Initially the divides are fairly close... I think you get through 3 or 4 names just getting to your first thousand posts... and after that, the gaps between new 'title' seem to get larger.

What do they mean? Who knows... they are usually about 'cyber-something' or 'spam-something'... or words to that KIND of effect... so I think the implication is, the more times you post, the bigger geek you are. Ina good way. :)
Are you implying that I am some sort of massive geek!