NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you implying that I am some sort of massive geek!

Welll... YES, obviously? :)

:fluffle:

Sorry, my friend, but the evidence IS against you.... :D

Welll... YES, obviously? :)

:fluffle:

Sorry, my friend, but the evidence IS against you.... :D
Damn it lol

Grave-
Those types of Jews, the ones who believe the Jesus is the Messiah, are called Messianic Jews. I've never heard of Jews-for-Jesus, or whatever that was. Besides all that, I also know very many Messianic Jews, just helping you realize it isn't impossible or anything.

On the matter of the Old Testament somehow proving or displaying Jesus as a false prophet, I still see no proof to your point, nor understand why you completely ignored the fact that I easily explained the problem with your previous post. If I may remind you, the one with the verses from Deut. speaking on false prophets. So don't try to use that again as an "inconsistency". Other than that, I'd love to hear some of these supposed inconsistencies of yours and apparently Jews everywhere...

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.


I second that Bruarong, I'm wondering how he/she has this much authority as well.

On another issue, I don't feel there is any chance of this fallible theory that "we all worship the same god." And don't believe nor affiliate myself with it. There is only One.

Grave-
Those types of Jews, the ones who believe the Jesus is the Messiah, are called Messianic Jews. I've never heard of Jews-for-Jesus, or whatever that was. Besides all that, I also know very many Messianic Jews, just helping you realize it isn't impossible or anything.

On the matter of the Old Testament somehow proving or displaying Jesus as a false prophet, I still see no proof to your point, nor understand why you completely ignored the fact that I easily explained the problem with your previous post. If I may remind you, the one with the verses from Deut. speaking on false prophets. So don't try to use that again as an "inconsistency". Other than that, I'd love to hear some of these supposed inconsistencies of yours and apparently Jews everywhere...

Bear in mind that the Jews who wrote the Old Testament did not believe there were any other real gods.

Bear in mind, also, that they believed that the miraculous was ONLY possible through divine intervention.

It is, thus, painfully obvious, that Jesus is EXACTLY the sort of prophet that Deuteronomy was warning against... a 'miracle-doer' that perverted the covenant.

You've never heard of Jews for Jesus?

http://www.rickross.com/groups/jews.html
http://www.rickross.com/groups/messianic.html

Bear in mind that the majority of Jews believe JFJ and Messianic Jews, to be an abomination... heretics of the lowest order, and puppets of militant Christian Evangelism.

"I know that the Christian world is divided over these attempts to convert Jews through this strange vehicle of erecting synagogues in which "Jews and Gentiles worship together, proclaiming the sovereignty of Yeshua ... (Yeshua is the name that messianic congregations give to Jesus). What really is created is not a synagogue at all; it is an evangelical church masquerading as a synagogue.

We understand the impulse to convert us; it is there in Christian Scripture for all to read. However, this particular movement is beneath the dignity of the Christian community. Its entire premise is one of deception and predation - and it is insulting not only to Jews, but also to Christians...

Someone asked "To what would 'Jews-for-Jesus' be compared?"

Our answer: It's a lot like "Vegetarians for Meat..."

The Jewish world - just as fragmented as Christianity on many subjects - on this question answers with one voice: We know that a "Jew-for-Jesus" is not a Jew and a "messianic synagogue" is not a synagogue".

I second that Bruarong, I'm wondering how he/she has this much authority as well.


I don't claim any great authority.

However - I have lived in a family which was partially Jewish, have associated with some persons who were Jewish, and have done a reasonable amount of research...

Like I said, though... I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject.


On another issue, I don't feel there is any chance of this fallible theory that "we all worship the same god." And don't believe nor affiliate myself with it. There is only One.

So it says in the Koran.

Bear in mind that the Jews who wrote the Old Testament did not believe there were any other real gods.

Bear in mind, also, that they believed that the miraculous was ONLY possible through divine intervention.

It is, thus, painfully obvious, that Jesus is EXACTLY the sort of prophet that Deuteronomy was warning against... a 'miracle-doer' that perverted the covenant.



I dont' believe there are any other real gods. Jesus never said there were any other real gods. So I'm not sure where, if anywhere, you were going with that.

I do believe that miracles are only possible through divine intervention. Have been, and always will be. Still seeing no contradiction. So I'm curious as to how those seemed to so obviously prove Jesus' "evilness". You say nothing about it being just that much possible for there to have been divine intervention by God through Jesus in His miracles. There is NO contradiction.

I'm also very very very very curious as to how you mean that he perverted the covenant. And if He did so, how? And which covenant are you referring to? Just some "little" things you might want to clear up for all of us tuning in.

So it says in the Koran.

Well the Koran focuses on Allah. I don't believe in Allah, I believe in God. The One. The only One.

I dont' believe there are any other real gods. Jesus never said there were any other real gods. So I'm not sure where, if anywhere, you were going with that.

I do believe that miracles are only possible through divine intervention. Have been, and always will be. Still seeing no contradiction. So I'm curious as to how those seemed to so obviously prove Jesus' "evilness". You say nothing about it being just that much possible for there to have been divine intervention by God through Jesus in His miracles. There is NO contradiction.

I'm also very very very very curious as to how you mean that he perverted the covenant. And if He did so, how? And which covenant are you referring to? Just some "little" things you might want to clear up for all of us tuning in.

what makes jesus infallible, in your opinion? obviously, you'll say because he claims to be the son of god, but then why do you recognize his claims over the claims of people like muhammed, buddha, etc? there must be some reason that you take the leap of faith that jesus was divine, and that reason must not be inherent in any other religion.

what makes jesus infallible, in your opinion? obviously, you'll say because he claims to be the son of god, but then why do you recognize his claims over the claims of people like muhammed, buddha, etc? there must be some reason that you take the leap of faith that jesus was divine, and that reason must not be inherent in any other religion.

Now now. Which other proper religion has another person claiming to be the son of a deity?

Now now. Which other proper religion has another person claiming to be the son of a deity?

none that come to mind, although there were countless other people who claimed to be the messiah. i'm just asking what he finds in jesus's claims that he apparently cannot find in the claims of other religions, and to a lesser extent all of the "false messiahs". are 12 followers and a bunch of parables sufficient proof that they were lying and jesus was the one who was telling the truth? most religions require a belief in the supernatural, i want to know what he feels vaults jesus to infallibility and relegates other "prophets" to misguided fools. i hope i'm getting the message across.

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 think the original name was Messianic Jews, while a more recent movement was called Jews for Jesus. Of course Jews that don't believe in Jesus would be quick to label them as Christians, but that's a bit unfair on them, I feel. The problem arises with multiple definitions of the name 'Christian' and 'Jew'. Neither am I persuaded to consider them Christians just because some Jews feel this way.


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.


I'm not sympathetic to that view at all. Each person is free to believe as they wish (unless you are in one of the strictest communistic or Islamic countries). The idea of raping a religion inplies that by holding a certain belief you can violate someone else's belief. But surely, the violation can only be if there is an action that violates. I suppose they are protesting over what they see as a loss of numbers of Jews to the Christian faith, and feel that this loss equates to a violation. Perhaps that demonstrates that they are not interested in the well-being of the converts, but rather their own security.
But if the belief systems of the 'converts' are inadequate, then it is only fair that they be allowed to adopt a new one. I suppose you would have to agree with that one, Grave, in the light of your own history.


My own upbringing was a curious one... I was raised by Anglican and Catholic parents - one of whom was 'born' Jewish...


OK, so you have had some contact with Jewish culture, perhaps. Do you argue that this makes you an authority. I grew up on a farm, but I don't consider myself an authority on farming matters.


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.


My reading of the OT has not found any evidence that there is evil in God, or that it comes from him. Although this is not so clear in the Old King James version, which makes no distinction between evil and discipline, on occasions. I prefer to read the NIV or the NLT, since I reckon the modern Bible translators have more understanding of translation matter (mostly) then those of King James. (Not to mention that I am more comfortable in my own language than one that is hundreds of years old.)



By the way - you can't logically use 'the Apostle Paul' to prove something about the Old Testament view of god....


Quite right. Although I was never intentionally trying to prove it. Just showing the Christian point of veiw that salvation is by faith, not by works, just as Abraham was saved according to his faith, not his works. His obedience was based on his faith in God, and thus God said to him: "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring [b] all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me." (Genesis 22)

The NT calls for people to obey God by placing their faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God in response to the Gospel, rather than trying to keep a whole bunch of rules. God was always relational and personal.

none that come to mind, although there were countless other people who claimed to be the messiah. i'm just asking what he finds in jesus's claims that he apparently cannot find in the claims of other religions, and to a lesser extent all of the "false messiahs". are 12 followers and a bunch of parables sufficient proof that they were lying and jesus was the one who was telling the truth? most religions require a belief in the supernatural, i want to know what he feels vaults jesus to infallibility and relegates other "prophets" to misguided fools. i hope i'm getting the message across.

I have also heard of many messiah's, particularly around the time of Jesus, but they continue to pop up now and then. Moses warned people about following false messiahs. So did Jesus. So I guess it's a good question as to why we can allow that Jesus was the true messiah. For me, the question revolves around the Scriptures. If we hold that the Bible is a relatively (at least) accurate collection of writings, then we have no trouble distinguishing between Jesus and the other messiahs. On the other hand, if we consider that the Bible is little more than a lump of contradictory material, then it's anybodies guess as to which messiah we should follow. So the Christians answer to your question is the Bible.

If you are dead set against allowing that Jesus is the messiah, you have to demonstrate that the Bible is so contradictory, that it cannot be trusted. You have to show that the writers were lying, or completely misled, for they left no doubt about their claims that Jesus was the messiah.

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?


Umm... 'cus hes not real. Pretty simple =)

Umm... 'cus hes not real. Pretty simple =)

Or perhaps he choses to be understood only by those who are prepared to open their minds.

Not necessarily. The laws may have been there to prevent the Hebrews from adopting the customs of the surrounding cultures.

You misunderstand - the laws I'm referring to are Leviticus 27:28,29:

Leviticus 27:28,29 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.

What are the practices that you would consider disgusting?

Human and animal sacrifice; the degradation of women; stoning humans for being human, etc.

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.

But what kind of parent kills their children to teach them a lesson?

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.

I can't say whether she was happy or not, since I'm not her, nor do I even know her. As I see it, if the life she chose to live after your father left made her happy, then good for her. Otherwise, as I see it, she threw her life away.

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.

You are right about the waste we see today and the lack of respect we give the animals whose lives are lost to nourish our own. That is a terrible shame. But that doesn't excuse the horrendous practice of animal sacrifice.

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.

Whatever happened to free will? Is it really free will if someone tells you that you are free to do whatever it is they want you to do, but you and your children will be destroyed if you don't? I don't know about you, but that's not quite how I would define free will.

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.

Unless, perhaps, they happened to be Canaanite women?

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.

You do paint a rosier picture of Paul's attitudes toward women than the one I have in my head:

1 Timothy 2:11-15 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Corinthians 14:34,35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

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.

I think that we humans tend to find whatever it is we are really looking for (and conversely, we don't see what we aren't really looking for), don't you? You know, seek and ye shall find? :)

On another issue, I don't feel there is any chance of this fallible theory that "we all worship the same god." And don't believe nor affiliate myself with it.
...
Well the Koran focuses on Allah. I don't believe in Allah, I believe in God. The One. The only One.I disagree with and despise your statement, which is more than I can say about anything else Christian, Atheist or Religious. Claiming that the deity to which others aspire is different and wrong, even if you claim they don't exist, is blatant Polytheist Favoritism. "My God is better than yours" is even a ridiculous statement for 5 year-old kindergarteners when they've been told that there only is one.

Not only is it spiritually incorrect, given that the only ideas of your God come from your doctrine, but also ethically incorrect, in that it disregards people coming to different conclusions in exactly the same way that you did because your result is exclusive and infallible.

The God of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, the incarnates in Hinduism, the Ultimate in Buddhism and the Scientific quest for truth must all aspire to the same thing for ANY of them to be valid. Whether this aspiration is earthly or otherworldly is another issue, but ultimately an irrelevant one. INFERENCES from this aspiration are not adequate stopping points, reasons for exclusion or persecution, and to dismiss all other attributations to this and its suggestors as not even flawed but out and out Wrong because they vary with your own is childish, irresponsible and callous.

Your faith is merely something human tagged on to an inhuman power. Whenever you ignore God and stop, content with focusing on the limitations of your Faith, you have FAILED in your search.

Let God out of the spiritual prison in your soul you have confined him in. He is to be revered and enjoyed, not chained up to be gawked upon by those around you.

Well I hate to break it to you but science is in itself a huge assumption. Math... made up. Who deceided what was 1 or 2 and that 1+2=3? Scientists assume everything can be measured and observed. They also assume conditions can be reproduced exactly. YOU assume your car is going to work when you turn the key. Life is based on assumptions. Saying a religion is based on assumption is like saying the skys blue. But the bible says it, I believe it, and thats good enough for me.

Well I hate to break it to you but science is in itself a huge assumption. Math... made up. Who deceided what was 1 or 2 and that 1+2=3?That would be the Greeks. And it's not an assumption; it's definition. The numeric system defines exactly why 1+2 = 3, because that's what the definitions of 1, 2, 3, + and = do. It's called the Axioms of Mathematics, and I'd recommend you have a look at the idea.

Scientists assume everything can be measured and observed. They also assume conditions can be reproduced exactly. YOU assume your car is going to work when you turn the key.Actually, that's very true, but only within the right context. Science is set up as a Model, and only that which can be measured, observed or tested can be used in that Model. Otherwise, people will disagree about it.

All science wants to do is find an explanation for how the world works that everyone can agree on or be persuaded to agree on by demonstratable facts and figures.

Life is based on assumptions. Saying a religion is based on assumption is like saying the skys blue. But the bible says it, I believe it, and thats good enough for me.I think that you're assuming that there's an assumption to be made. Following God or paying heed to the ideas of Jesus do not necessarily assume anything about the divine. These assumptions are tagged on by Organisations that simply want to hook people into a group.

I think that at the base level, very few people have a problem with God. What people have is either an issue with the people who claim to represent him or the attributations to him which they have assigned. Your faith is merely your ideas of what God is and does; to claim that that is the be-all and end-all of God is the assumption that is both unreasonable and self-destructive.

Human and animal sacrifice; the degradation of women; stoning humans for being human, etc.


You do paint a rosier picture of Paul's attitudes toward women than the one I have in my head:

1 Timothy 2:11-15 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Corinthians 14:34,35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.



First off, there is absolutely ZERO, NONE, NO point in the Holy Bible where God commands or requires that man sacrifice man. He despises it and says so all over the place. Animal sacrifice, I agree with Bruarong, in that it was the most sacred. It was because of this sacred understanding of the importance of animals that the Israelites sacrificed them. Not only that, they were given to them by GOD. So they are giving back in thanksgiving and praise. Not some sick ritual. It's very solemn and meaningful.


Second of all, I hate to break it to you, but 1 Timothy, was written to a guy named Timothy. I know its shocking. But anyway, Paul was simply giving Timothy a lot of good advice. Woman has a place in submission to man. Given in God's righteousness and power. Paul is describing the fad for women to "usurp the man's authority". Timothy was essentially Paul's deputy. Young and always desiring of direction. Corinthians, a letter to the church of the Corinthians. Now then, many believe that the epistles to the churches were meant as an encouragement and exhortation to better practices. Some need help in other areas more than others. Maybe the Corinthians had particularly rebellious women in their churches. Maybe they asked Paul for advice on it. If this is the case, Paul is merely re-iterating a strong Biblical theme that the wife is to be submitted to her husband in happieness. The husband is not to rule with unjust and cruel behaviour because he has been given such authority over his household. Therefore this whole Corinthians excerpt is another statement of a righteous fact in families and the culture of the time.

I disagree with and despise your statement, which is more than I can say about anything else Christian, Atheist or Religious. Claiming that the deity to which others aspire is different and wrong, even if you claim they don't exist, is blatant Polytheist Favoritism. "My God is better than yours" is even a ridiculous statement for 5 year-old kindergarteners when they've been told that there only is one.

Not only is it spiritually incorrect, given that the only ideas of your God come from your doctrine, but also ethically incorrect, in that it disregards people coming to different conclusions in exactly the same way that you did because your result is exclusive and infallible.

The God of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, the incarnates in Hinduism, the Ultimate in Buddhism and the Scientific quest for truth must all aspire to the same thing for ANY of them to be valid. Whether this aspiration is earthly or otherworldly is another issue, but ultimately an irrelevant one. INFERENCES from this aspiration are not adequate stopping points, reasons for exclusion or persecution, and to dismiss all other attributations to this and its suggestors as not even flawed but out and out Wrong because they vary with your own is childish, irresponsible and callous.

Your faith is merely something human tagged on to an inhuman power. Whenever you ignore God and stop, content with focusing on the limitations of your Faith, you have FAILED in your search.

Let God out of the spiritual prison in your soul you have confined him in. He is to be revered and enjoyed, not chained up to be gawked upon by those around you.

Oh good, so now we're all allowed to point and say "HEY thats not very nice!! you don't make me feel warm and fuzzy inside even though you may have something important to get across!!!" "WAAA"

So I'm now allowed to make the equally childish and moronic statement like... I disagree with and despise all of YOUR previous statements. Yeah talk about shoving your own views down peoples throat and telling them to swallow or else. I'm afraid you aren't going to get very many converts to your perverse and ridiculous point of view.

what makes jesus infallible, in your opinion? obviously, you'll say because he claims to be the son of god, but then why do you recognize his claims over the claims of people like muhammed, buddha, etc? there must be some reason that you take the leap of faith that jesus was divine, and that reason must not be inherent in any other religion.

There is in fact a reason to take the leap of faith, and it isn't inherent in any other religion. And it's as simple as the fact that in my research and upbringing I've found this religion to be a true salvation for my life. I base my belief in Jesus Christ the Son of God and of Man, made in humanity so that He could die and rise again in three days, conquering death and sin. Forever vanquishing my devilish foe. And for giving me a new life, washing in His blood. The same blood he spilled for me on Calvary. The day He died so that all else could live.

Why do I believe He is who He claims to be? There is definitely a measure of faith, and hope. But I would also have to deny the thousands upon thousands of prophecies that one man can fulfill. And if you say that number is exaggerated, the chances of even half of that for one man to fulfill are astronomical. Namely, as numerous as all the sand grains on the ocean floor.

You misunderstand - the laws I'm referring to are Leviticus 27:28,29:

Leviticus 27:28,29 Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely be put to death.


I'm not sure if you misunderstand the context, but based on your last post, you seemed to be suggesting that this piece of scripture is demonstrating that the Hebrews practised human sacrifice. Is that so? At any rate, I think one needs to distinguish between taking human life in an attempt to appease the gods or god, and taking human life in the case of a war that a god ordered, or destroying life, e.g., the captives in obedience to the commands of the god. In the first case, one was an institution, and in the second case, it was more of a one off. In the first case, the taking of life is what appeases the god, while in the second, being obedient.

There were also cases of where, if someone took a person's life, his own life was forfeited. He had to die. The law of Moses was an eye for an eye. There was no way the life of the murderer could be redeemed. This was to satisfy the demans for justice that the blood of the innocent person demanded. This is clearly different from human sacrifice.


Human and animal sacrifice; the degradation of women; stoning humans for being human, etc.


We can rule out human sacrifice. More like capital punishment. Animal sacrifice.....the animal meat was usually eaten, unless it was a burn offering. I wouldn't call that disgusting. The animals were going to die anyway. Why not use their lives as a reminder that our sin must be paid for, and that forgiveness comes at a price. I call that practical.

Before you claim that Jewish law advocated the degradation of women, you have to demonstrate that the plight of women was worse after the laws than before. For example, many of the laws about women may well have been in place to protect them. An example is where the woman is raped. The rapist then has to marry her if she was a virgin. (If she was married, he had to die.) This may look look like degradation of women, compared to our present ideas of equality, but given that the plight of women may well have been far worse (i.e., a virgin was anyone's game, so long as they were stronger than her family), a law like that would have helped women.

Stoning a human for breaking a serious law was perhaps not such a bad alternative to being cast out of the community and forced to survive on beetles and grubs in a desert. Anyhow, that is the old issue of capital punishment. It could be argued that stoning was the 'best of a bad bunch of methods' for killing someone. Things like hanging, drowning, or burning are perhaps worse, in some ways.

In no case was a human stoned for being a human. You will possibly have to do better than that. At least give an example.



But what kind of parent kills their children to teach them a lesson?


Learning belongs to the living. The dead have their chances taken away from them. We are all going to die someday. From the Christian point of view, the only reason why a Christian is living is that they have more to learn about a relationship with God. The only reason why an unbeliever is still living is that they may have more time accept God's offer.


I can't say whether she was happy or not, since I'm not her, nor do I even know her. As I see it, if the life she chose to live after your father left made her happy, then good for her. Otherwise, as I see it, she threw her life away.


You may, of course, see it how you like. But that will never rule out the possibility that she has discovered something about life that you haven't (or choose not to).


You are right about the waste we see today and the lack of respect we give the animals whose lives are lost to nourish our own. That is a terrible shame. But that doesn't excuse the horrendous practice of animal sacrifice.


It's not horrendous if taking animal life is done with a great deal of respect, and the life of the animal is not wasted (e.g. the meat is eaten).


Whatever happened to free will? Is it really free will if someone tells you that you are free to do whatever it is they want you to do, but you and your children will be destroyed if you don't? I don't know about you, but that's not quite how I would define free will.


I suppose free will meant that they were allowed to choose the horrendous consequences of their actions. Neither are we free of the consequences, according to the NT. This is an example of free choice, albeit a limited free choice. There are only two roads, Jesus said, and two destinations.


Unless, perhaps, they happened to be Canaanite women?


I thought it was more to do with being a Canaanite, not a woman.


You do paint a rosier picture of Paul's attitudes toward women than the one I have in my head:

1 Timothy 2:11-15 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Corinthians 14:34,35 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.


I don't claim that passages of scripture like this one don't cause me some unease. I suppose we would see a clearer picture if we could see the context in which those words were written. I don't see here (necessarily, anyway) the degradation of women, but the rational by which the writer (I always thought it was Paul) does not allow women to teach or rule. On the surface, it does seem that the writer thinks less of the abilities and roles of women. But I argue that this isn't necessarily so. It certainly was written in a different culture. Does that mean it ought to be a law for all of Christendom, for every culture? Is that what the writer is really trying to establish? We need to have a look at the context before we assume this to be degrading to women. It certainly is an issue in some parts of the church. The church that I grew up in has slowly moved from not allowing female to contribute in services, certainly not as teachers, to appointing femal pastors. I guess it has been some sort of journey for the religious community.



I think that we humans tend to find whatever it is we are really looking for (and conversely, we don't see what we aren't really looking for), don't you? You know, seek and ye shall find? :)

I agree. But at least you can see my point. With the science world full of biased individuals like myself, there is a fair possibility that naturistic evolution is built upon a similar bias.

I dont' believe there are any other real gods. Jesus never said there were any other real gods. So I'm not sure where, if anywhere, you were going with that.


It doesn't matter if YOU believe in other gods or not. As hard as you might find it to comprehend, ancient Hebrews did not write their scripture with YOU as the target audience.

The point is that the ancient Hebrews conceived of ONE god, and that is the god that all their scripture is about. And that scripture warns against persons pretending to be the messengers of other gods. ESPECIALLY (re-read it) those that CAN perform miracles.

Why is that important - this will (hopefully) become clear later:


I do believe that miracles are only possible through divine intervention. Have been, and always will be. Still seeing no contradiction. So I'm curious as to how those seemed to so obviously prove Jesus' "evilness". You say nothing about it being just that much possible for there to have been divine intervention by God through Jesus in His miracles. There is NO contradiction.


Any prophet that can do miracles MUST be doing them through god, is roughly the thinking of the ancient Hebrews. Any prophet that can do miracles, must, therefore, be 'using' god. So - when a prophet comes along and changes what god 'means', THAT is the only type of False Prophet that the Deuteronomy passage was referring to:

Someone who can't do miracles, in the name of ANY god = NOT a prophet.

Someone who CAN do miracles, in the name of the 'true' god = True Prophet.

Someone who can do miracles, in the name of a false interpretation of god = False Prophet.

According to the passage of Deuteronomy, there are True and False prophets... depending on whether they preach the 'true' god, or a false version. According to the Ancient Hebrews, Jesus would be preaching a different version. Thus: Jesus is the very False Prophet that Deuteronomy warned against.


I'm also very very very very curious as to how you mean that he perverted the covenant. And if He did so, how? And which covenant are you referring to? Just some "little" things you might want to clear up for all of us tuning in.

Jesus doesn't teach the same covenant as the Old Testament god dictated. He preached a god to the Gentiles, and he preached 'manumission' from the Old Covenant laws.

Look at it from the perspective of a Hebrew in the time of Abraham... what do you think he would have thought of Jesus' teachings?

According to the passage of Deuteronomy, there are True and False prophets... depending on whether they preach the 'true' god, or a false version. According to the Ancient Hebrews, Jesus would be preaching a different version. Thus: Jesus is the very False Prophet that Deuteronomy warned against.


Matthew 12:22-29

22Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub,[d] the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."

25Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

29"Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.

Now now. Which other proper religion has another person claiming to be the son of a deity?

What's a proper religion?

Heracles was the son of a deity.

Oh good, so now we're all allowed to point and say "HEY thats not very nice!! you don't make me feel warm and fuzzy inside even though you may have something important to get across!!!" "WAAA"

So I'm now allowed to make the equally childish and moronic statement like... I disagree with and despise all of YOUR previous statements. Yeah talk about shoving your own views down peoples throat and telling them to swallow or else. I'm afraid you aren't going to get very many converts to your perverse and ridiculous point of view.Oh, you disagree do you? You think Christianity is more important than God himself? Well excuse me.

My point of view does not require converts. Therein is the difference. People can be Christian, Jew or Muslim just fine. It's whenever you explicitly set out to attack people because of Trivial differences in what God may have done that I get angry, and by any standards, that is entirely justified.

You're entitled to hate and despise me; what I proclaim is contradiction to your entire philosophy, and I do not seek to hide that. Don't think for one second that I'm going to yield to your exclusivity for fear of offense. God, yes. Jesus, yes. Eternal suffering for not subscribing to one organisation who makes fallible human proclamations about the two?

I'll let you decide. That doesn't mean I have to like your decision.


EDIT: While I do not retract my statement, I will accept any mod warnings as a result of this and will honour any requests to drop it.

Matthew 12:22-29

22Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23All the people were astonished and said, "Could this be the Son of David?"
24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub,[d] the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."

25Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

29"Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.

Exactly - see, even Neo Rogolia can find evidence of Jesus as a False Prophet.

Well the Koran focuses on Allah. I don't believe in Allah, I believe in God. The One. The only One.

That's what I said... the Koran agrees with you. It teaches that there is only one true god.

And his name is Allah.

Or perhaps he choses to be understood only by those who are prepared to open their minds.

Which implies that there is some special skill that is:

a) present in some people, but not others.
b) capable of discerning something that cannot be discerned any other way.

Surely, it is JUST as LOGICAL to assume:

a) The skill is imaginary - and people see what they WANT to see... or
b) The sense is false, and the vision is delusion?

Not that I'm saying that IS the case - but you must admit, relying on a sense that only the 'believer' has, is only as logical as the idea that 'believers' are just self-delusional?

I think the original name was Messianic Jews, while a more recent movement was called Jews for Jesus. Of course Jews that don't believe in Jesus would be quick to label them as Christians, but that's a bit unfair on them, I feel. The problem arises with multiple definitions of the name 'Christian' and 'Jew'. Neither am I persuaded to consider them Christians just because some Jews feel this way.


I have met people calling themselves 'Jews for Jesus', and I have met OTHER people who distanced themselves from 'Jews-for-Jesus', and called themselves Messianic Jews. I'm not sure what the true difference is between those two groups, or even if there is a difference... but I have been told by some that the difference is:

'Jews for Jesus' believe that Jesus WAS Messiah... which basically means they ARE Christians, while:

'Messianic Jews' (might) believe that Jesus was a failed Messiah. Evidence OF Messiah, if you will, but not Messiah.

But then, maybe this is all anecdotal.


I'm not sympathetic to that view at all. Each person is free to believe as they wish (unless you are in one of the strictest communistic or Islamic countries). The idea of raping a religion inplies that by holding a certain belief you can violate someone else's belief. But surely, the violation can only be if there is an action that violates. I suppose they are protesting over what they see as a loss of numbers of Jews to the Christian faith, and feel that this loss equates to a violation. Perhaps that demonstrates that they are not interested in the well-being of the converts, but rather their own security.
But if the belief systems of the 'converts' are inadequate, then it is only fair that they be allowed to adopt a new one. I suppose you would have to agree with that one, Grave, in the light of your own history.


Not quite - those Jews who oppose Messianic Jews believe that someone is coming in and stealing all the imagery from their religion, if you will, to dress up a DIFFERENT religion... just pretending they are the same faith.. and 'suckering' those who do not know the difference.

Imagine I set up a church, with all the nice crosses and stuff, and called myself the "First Baptist Church" or something like that. Once the service starts, I pull out my 'special' Bible, and we start in on my preaching about how Jesus and Satan are Jehovah's twin sons, and how Jesus stole Satan's birthright, and eventually murdered him. He then received 'the mark of Cain' -as a BLESSING, from his father, to enable him to become immortal.

You like my service? You think it is true to what the Baptists/Christians/Protestants believe?

More to the point - do you think it's OKAY for me to teach that? Do you think I am treating Christian religion fairly, or do you think I am taking the Christian scripture and trappings, and using it for my own ends?


OK, so you have had some contact with Jewish culture, perhaps. Do you argue that this makes you an authority. I grew up on a farm, but I don't consider myself an authority on farming matters.


Re-read my last few posts on this thread. I have clearly said that I do not consider myself an expert. But, I DO have experience, and I've done a fair amount of research. You don't have to beleive me about anything I say, you can research it all for yourself.

The problem, as I perceive it, is that most 'Christians' DON'T research anything that might cast a shadow over their own scripture.


My reading of the OT has not found any evidence that there is evil in God, or that it comes from him. Although this is not so clear in the Old King James version, which makes no distinction between evil and discipline, on occasions. I prefer to read the NIV or the NLT, since I reckon the modern Bible translators have more understanding of translation matter (mostly) then those of King James. (Not to mention that I am more comfortable in my own language than one that is hundreds of years old.)


I'll just present two examples... there are many more:

1) God sends 'evil spirits': Judges 9:23 "Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech".

2) God causes 'evil': Judges 9:57 "And all the evil of the men of Shechem did God render upon their heads."

That's what I said... the Koran agrees with you. It teaches that there is only one true god.

And his name is Allah.
Sorta on topic ....

*from Guest commentary: Catholic theology has no fight with Darwin
By KENNETH R. MILLER, The Providence Journal
August 13, 2005 *

...
Like many other scientists who hold the Catholic faith, I see the Creator's plan and purpose fulfilled in our universe. I see a planet bursting with evolutionary possibilities — a continuing creation, in which the divine providence is manifest in every living thing. I see a science that tells us there is indeed a design to life. And the name of that design is evolution.

I have met people calling themselves 'Jews for Jesus', and I have met OTHER people who distanced themselves from 'Jews-for-Jesus', and called themselves Messianic Jews. I'm not sure what the true difference is between those two groups, or even if there is a difference... but I have been told by some that the difference is:

'Jews for Jesus' believe that Jesus WAS Messiah... which basically means they ARE Christians, while:

'Messianic Jews' (might) believe that Jesus was a failed Messiah. Evidence OF Messiah, if you will, but not Messiah.

But then, maybe this is all anecdotal.



Not quite - those Jews who oppose Messianic Jews believe that someone is coming in and stealing all the imagery from their religion, if you will, to dress up a DIFFERENT religion... just pretending they are the same faith.. and 'suckering' those who do not know the difference.

Imagine I set up a church, with all the nice crosses and stuff, and called myself the "First Baptist Church" or something like that. Once the service starts, I pull out my 'special' Bible, and we start in on my preaching about how Jesus and Satan are Jehovah's twin sons, and how Jesus stole Satan's birthright, and eventually murdered him. He then received 'the mark of Cain' -as a BLESSING, from his father, to enable him to become immortal.

You like my service? You think it is true to what the Baptists/Christians/Protestants believe?

More to the point - do you think it's OKAY for me to teach that? Do you think I am treating Christian religion fairly, or do you think I am taking the Christian scripture and trappings, and using it for my own ends?



Re-read my last few posts on this thread. I have clearly said that I do not consider myself an expert. But, I DO have experience, and I've done a fair amount of research. You don't have to beleive me about anything I say, you can research it all for yourself.

The problem, as I perceive it, is that most 'Christians' DON'T research anything that might cast a shadow over their own scripture.



I'll just present two examples... there are many more:

1) God sends 'evil spirits': Judges 9:23 "Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech".

2) God causes 'evil': Judges 9:57 "And all the evil of the men of Shechem did God render upon their heads."

Hey, Gravy, this may seem like a naive question, but do you have most of this material on quick reference or are you just SUPER fast on your retrieval capabilities? If so ..... *nudge*
*bows*

I disagree with and despise your statement, which is more than I can say about anything else Christian, Atheist or Religious. Claiming that the deity to which others aspire is different and wrong, even if you claim they don't exist, is blatant Polytheist Favoritism. "My God is better than yours" is even a ridiculous statement for 5 year-old kindergarteners when they've been told that there only is one.

Not only is it spiritually incorrect, given that the only ideas of your God come from your doctrine, but also ethically incorrect, in that it disregards people coming to different conclusions in exactly the same way that you did because your result is exclusive and infallible.

The God of Islam, Judaism and Christianity, the incarnates in Hinduism, the Ultimate in Buddhism and the Scientific quest for truth must all aspire to the same thing for ANY of them to be valid. Whether this aspiration is earthly or otherworldly is another issue, but ultimately an irrelevant one. INFERENCES from this aspiration are not adequate stopping points, reasons for exclusion or persecution, and to dismiss all other attributations to this and its suggestors as not even flawed but out and out Wrong because they vary with your own is childish, irresponsible and callous.

Your faith is merely something human tagged on to an inhuman power. Whenever you ignore God and stop, content with focusing on the limitations of your Faith, you have FAILED in your search.

Let God out of the spiritual prison in your soul you have confined him in. He is to be revered and enjoyed, not chained up to be gawked upon by those around you.

Excellent post.

A round of applause for Kamsaki, ladies and gentlemen. :)

Well I hate to break it to you but science is in itself a huge assumption. Math... made up. Who deceided what was 1 or 2 and that 1+2=3? Scientists assume everything can be measured and observed. They also assume conditions can be reproduced exactly. YOU assume your car is going to work when you turn the key. Life is based on assumptions. Saying a religion is based on assumption is like saying the skys blue. But the bible says it, I believe it, and thats good enough for me.

You are arguing against the principles of math?

Let's do a little logic puzzle, shall we?

Take a piece of paper and lay it on the floor in front of you.

Okay - how many pieces of paper do you have in front of you?

Now - take a second piece of paper - and lay it next to the first.

Now, how many pieces of paper do you have in front of you?

1=1, not because we assume it does, or want it to - but because it is a 'description' of something we can observe.

1+1=2, not because we want it to, or because that is how we 'define it'... but because it DESCRIBES something we can observe.

Oh, you disagree do you? You think Christianity is more important than God himself? Well excuse me.

My point of view does not require converts. Therein is the difference. People can be Christian, Jew or Muslim just fine. It's whenever you explicitly set out to attack people because of Trivial differences in what God may have done that I get angry, and by any standards, that is entirely justified.

You're entitled to hate and despise me; what I proclaim is contradiction to your entire philosophy, and I do not seek to hide that. Don't think for one second that I'm going to yield to your exclusivity for fear of offense. God, yes. Jesus, yes. Eternal suffering for not subscribing to one organisation who make fallible human proclamations about the two?

I'll let you decide. That doesn't mean I have to like your decision.


EDIT: While I do not retract my statement, I will accept any mod warnings as a result of this and will honour any requests to drop it.

Second Excellent post from kamsaki.

I would have though you should be pretty safe from Mod predations. Your points have been fair, and are certainly LESS offensive (one would think) than telling someone that their image of 'god' is inferior to your own...

Hey, Gravy, this may seem like a naive question, but do you have most of this material on quick reference or are you just SUPER fast on your retrieval capabilities? If so ..... *nudge*
*bows*

Well, I usually look-up specific Bible references, to make sure I get them right, and to check their contexts... and I pull sources when they are needed to support a point...

I don't know... I just have a good memory, and have spent YEARS researching some of the stuff I argue.

Grave_n_idle:

I have a little puzzle for you:

If you take a piece of furniture with a back and 4 legs and a platform to sit on....we define it as a perfectly fine and working "chair"......but:

If you take that same "chair" and cut off ONE leg...then it becomes a broken "chair"....but we still define it as a "chair"....and:

If you take the same broken "chair" and cut off another leg....it still remains a "chair".....but now it is a VERY broken "chair"....and:

If you take that same VERY broken "chair" and cut off the third leg....it still remains a "chair", but now it is a VERY, VERY broken "chair"...and:

If you take that same VERY, VERY broken chair and cut off the last leg....it still remains a "chair", but it is now a LEGLESS "chair".....but:

If you cut the back off of a perfectly functional "chair", it becomes a "STOOL"!!!

So somehow, OUR DEFINITON of a "chair" vs. a "stool" is all in whether or not there is a BACK on it.

How do we know what the number "1" means?.....it is because we have placed a DEFINITON on "1".....how do we know what number "2" means?.....it is because we have placed a DEFINITION on "2".....so the only reason why we know that 1+1=2 is because we have DEFINED those numbers to MEAN something to us.

Empirical knowledge is always based on the "DEFINITIONS" that human beings have come up with. Without any "definitions" placed on our world, we ACTUALLY don't KNOW anything because we wouldn't be able to DEFINE it!!!!

Grave_n_idle:

I have a little puzzle for you:

If you take a piece of furniture with a back and 4 legs and a platform to sit on....we define it as a perfectly fine and working "chair"......but:

If you take that same "chair" and cut off ONE leg...then it becomes a broken "chair"....but we still define it as a "chair"....and:

If you take the same broken "chair" and cut off another leg....it still remains a "chair".....but now it is a VERY broken "chair"....and:

If you take that same VERY broken "chair" and cut off the third leg....it still remains a "chair", but now it is a VERY, VERY broken "chair"...and:

If you take that same VERY, VERY broken chair and cut off the last leg....it still remains a "chair", but it is now a LEGLESS "chair".....but:

If you cut the back off of a perfectly functional "chair", it becomes a "STOOL"!!!

So somehow, OUR DEFINITON of a "chair" vs. a "stool" is all in whether or not there is a BACK on it.

How do we know what the number "1" means?.....it is because we have placed a DEFINITON on "1".....how do we know what number "2" means?.....it is because we have placed a DEFINITION on "2".....so the only reason why we know that 1+1=2 is because we have DEFINED those numbers to MEAN something to us.

Empirical knowledge is always based on the "DEFINITIONS" that human beings have come up with. Without any "definitions" placed on our world, we ACTUALLY don't KNOW anything because we wouldn't be able to DEFINE it!!!!

Actually - no... the definitions remained constant... all you did was change the 'name'.

And, "1" is just the 'name' for a single entity... just as "2" is just the name for one single entity in the company of one OTHER single entity.

"1" doesn't MEAN one thing... it is just what one thing is CALLED.

And, did we define 1+1=2? No - it is observation... that you can do at home.

A thing and a thing is (a thing and a thing).

But, when we write it, we use symbols: 1+1=2.

Grave_n_idle:

...but how do we know what a "thing" is unless we define it?...the ONLY reason why I know what a "thing" is, is because we have defined the word "thing".....for instance, you would think that "gravity" would be something that is empirical because we can SEE it work.....but what if we had NO definition for "fall" or "ground" or "gravity" or "speed" or "acceleration" or "weight" or anything like that....objects would still "fall" to the "ground" because of "gravity"......but unless we can define any of those things, an observation cannot be made.

Here is a challenge for you....explain to me about mathematics WITHOUT using mathematical definitions....like the word "1" or "2" or "single" or "number" or "double" or "equals"...once you can do that, then I will concede and say that our world ISN'T based on layers of DEFINITIONS.

Grave_n_idle:

Heck, we can't even OBSERVE something unless the word OBSERVE is defined for us.

Grave_n_idle:

...but how do we know what a "thing" is unless we define it?...the ONLY reason why I know what a "thing" is, is because we have defined the word "thing".....for instance, you would think that "gravity would be something that is empirical because we can SEE it work.....but what if we had NO definition for "fall" or "ground" or "gravity" or "speed" or "acceleration" or "weight" or anything like that....objects would still "fall" to the "ground" because of "gravity"......but unless we can define any of those things, an observation cannot be made.

Here is a challenge for you....explain to me about mathematics WITHOUT using mathematical definitions....like the word "1" or "2" or "single" or "number" or "double" or "equals"...once you can do that, then I will concede and say that our world ISN'T based on layers of DEFINITIONS.

You see, the problem here is, you aren't working from first principles... and you are jumping too far with your steps. Don't jump STRAIGHT to rate-of-change of velocity... start with addition..

Our basic math comes from observation - and everything else has built on top of the fundamentals... but we can literally see, and touch basic math.

Here is me. I am Grave_n_idle... but that takes a while to type... so let's just call me (G) (for Grave).

Over there, I can see (not really, but you 'get' what I mean) you. You are Woodsprites... which doesn't take QUITE as long to type... but, heck, I got an abbreviation, so let's give you one, too. You can be (W).

Okay so far?

When you see (G)... you KNOW what I'm talking about... it's the 'name' we are using to shorten having to write "Grave_n_idle" each time...

And, when I write "Grave_n_idle", that's only REALLY my quick and easy way of expressing "the person who IS a person, who is SPECIFICALLY THIS person, and no other persons". All of that is implied in 'me'... and the Grave thing is just a 'name'... as the (G) thing is just a name.

Now - we take our Grave_n_idle, and we put him in the same Pizza Hut as Woodsprites.

They are still the persons they were before... each an individual, totally observable... tangible. You can touch them. More to the point, you can discern that there are MORE people than just (G) or (W).

What we have now, is a kind of gestalt. Our Pizza Hut now accomodates an 'entity' which is actually the combination of (G) and (W).

This gestalt Entity (let's call it (E), yes?) has more eyes than either of the individual components, more arms, etc. It is 'different' to the (G) and (W) entities, but is formed from their indivisible components.

So - let's look into Pizza Hut.

We see (E) - an 'entity', which is equal to (G) in conjunction with (W).

And, the weird thing is, if we replace Woodsprites (who goes outside for a minute), with Straughn (S)... we still have an entity which comprises the same components as (E), even though we KNOW that (S) and (W) are different people.

So - let's replace (S) or (W) with 'people', or (P).

Whenever we see (P) and (P) together, we see (E)... still with me?

What about when (W) comes back? We now have (G) and (W) and (S)... which ALSO forms an 'entity'... but not the SAME entity as (G) and (W) OR (G) and (S)... this is a bigger entity, with more components.

We see that (P) and (P) makes (E)... and:

(P) and (P) and (P) makes a BIGGER entity (call it... (B), yes?)

so... (P) is just (P).
and... (P) + (P) is (E)
and... (P) + (P) + (P) is (B)

We have created the basis of a numerical scale, do you see? And, further, we can do very basic calculations... just based on names... names of individuals, and names of groups.

(B) - (P) = (E)... you see? We don't know WHICH person was subtracted, or which two persons are left in the 'entity'... but we can do basic math.. and it is ALWAYS true.

THAT is the heart of math... it doesn't matter what name you use... or how you define your entities... the CORE is always true, no matter what you call it.

Grave_n_idle:

Heck, we can't even OBSERVE something unless the word OBSERVE is defined for us.

No, no... we can 'observe' it... we'd just call it something different.

Rocks fall from the sky. I see it happen. I 'observe' the metoer-shower.

Rocks fall from the sky. I see it happen. I 'watch' the meteor-shower.

Rocks fall from the sky. I see it happen. I 'skrelukle' the meteor-shower.

The ACTION is not changed by the definition... only the words we use to DESCRIBE the action.

Grave_n_idle:

...but you have DEFINED each symbol to mean something....and how would I have a concept of what you meant unless I knew the definitions of =, +, -, the english words that you have used, and all of the symbols that you have created?...you see I'm not saying that mathematics doesn't EXIST (and how would we know what EXIST means unless we DEFINE that), but I am saying that you can't PROVE it's existance WITHOUT DEFINING IT in some way. We also can't UTILIZE mathematics UNTIL we DEFINE it! For instance, the ONLY reason why people can go to school and LEARN math is because we have DEFINED it....What if I redefined the numbers to mean other things....like "1" becomes "4"...and "6" becomes "2".....and "9" becomes "6"?....so in MY math, 1+6=9....if I had REDEFINED the numbers while I was in school, then I would've gotten a big fat F on my report card!!!....Why? Because those are NOT the DEFINITIONS that are ACCEPTED in society. Again, can you explain math to me without using some type of DEFINEMENT....real or made up?...DEFINITIONS are the basis of communication, so I know that you can't. We DEFINE everything that is in our world!

Grave_n_idle:

...but you have DEFINED each symbol to mean something....and how would I have a concept of what you meant unless I knew the definitions of =, +, -, the english words that you have used, and all of the symbols that you have created?...you see I'm not saying that mathematics doesn't EXIST (and how would we know what EXIST means unless we DEFINE that), but I am saying that you can't PROVE it's existance WITHOUT DEFINING IT in some way. We also can't UTILIZE mathematics UNTIL we DEFINE it! For instance, the ONLY reason why people can go to school and LEARN math is because we have DEFINED it....What if I redefined the numbers to mean other things....like "1" becomes "4"...and "6" becomes "2".....and "9" becomes "6"?....so in MY math, 1+6=9....if I had REDEFINED the numbers while I was in school, then I would've gotten a big fat F on my report card!!!....Why? Because those are NOT the DEFINITIONS that are ACCEPTED in society. Again, can you explain math to me without using some type of DEFINEMENT....real or made up?...DEFINITIONS are the basis of communication, so I know that you can't. We DEFINE everything that is in our world!

Not at all...

You take one stone and you place it next to another stone. It doesn't matter what you define the name as... whatever you call it, it's two.

It's always two... no matter what you name it... 'deux', 'dos' 'swei'... whatever... they all mean the same thing... they are all the NAME of one and one together.

The 'numbers' we use (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) are just convenience... they represent something... but they are NOT that thing... it is not about the definition.

Again - look at your two stones lying next to each other... regardless of what you call them (rocks, pebbles, stones, boulders, helicopters), if you take ONE and put it with another, you always have TWO (whatever you call 'two').

Look.

:)

:) + :) = :):)

1 + 1 = 2

or, if you used '9' to MEAN '1', and '6' to mean '2'...

9 + 9 = 6

The symbols can change... the names can change, but look:

9 = :) still just one smiley

and 6 = :):) still just two smileys

You are confusing 'definitions' and 'names' with the observable truth of a thing... as you can see, you can clearly observe one smiley and another smiley making two smileys... no matter what you call them.

Grave_n_idle:

That is what I am saying....what if we DIDN'T have communication to DEFINE everything with?....what if we COULDN'T grunt, speak different languages, use sign language, write or communicate an IDEA to someone else....then we wouldn't be able to DEFINE the word "observe" at all....regardless of what word you replace it with....because you are still DEFINING the CONCEPT of the word "OBSERVE"!! And you could say that:

Rocks fall from the sky. I see it happen. I 'skrelukle' the meteor-shower.

But I would have to know how you have DEFINED "skrelukle" BEFORE I could understand what you meant....It all comes DOWN to the FACT that we DEFINE everything in our world.

Feork founser youdns dutoewmns wprsnfng!!!

Do you know what the above sentence means without ME telling you how I have DEFINED what each "word" means?

Grave_n_idle:

But you are still DEFINING concepts with SOMETHING....even happy faces....yes, the symbols can change...but the symbols have to be DEFINED to MEAN something BEFORE you can COMMUNICATE it to someone else...Explain mathematics to me WITHOUT defining the set of symbols that you are using....

For example:

r+s=t

Do you know what I have DEFINED "r" as? Do you know what I have DEFINED "s" as? Do you know what I have defined "t" as? If the DEFINING of terms in mathematics is irrelevant, then you should have NO problems figuring out what it all means....without me DEFINING them for you.....right?

Grave_n_idle:

That is what I am saying....what if we DIDN'T have communication to DEFINE everything with?....what if we COULDN'T grunt, speak different languages, use sign language, write or communicate an IDEA to someone else....then we wouldn't be able to DEFINE the word "observe" at all....regardless of what word you replace it with....because you are still DEFINING the CONCEPT of the word "OBSERVE"!! And you could say that:

Rocks fall from the sky. I see it happen. I 'skrelukle' the meteor-shower.

But I would have to know how you have DEFINED "skrelukle" BEFORE I could understand what you meant....It all comes DOWN to the FACT that we DEFINE everything in our world.

Feork founser youdns dutoewmns wprsnfng!!!

Do you know what the above sentence means without ME telling you how I have DEFINED what each "word" means?

It's a nice night out, tonight.

Here we are, you and I... out in the fields, looking at the sky.

There is a meteor-shower, and the bits of space-dirt are burning up in spectacular flashes across the atmosphere.

I tap your arm, and point to the sky...



We have just 'commicated' observation, without ANY definitions.

Grave_n_idle:

But you are still DEFINING concepts with SOMETHING....even happy faces....yes, the symbols can change...but the symbols have to be DEFINED to MEAN something BEFORE you can COMMUNICATE it to someone else...Explain mathematics to me WITHOUT defining the set of symbols that you are using....

For example:

r+s=t

Do you know what I have DEFINED "r" as? Do you know what I have DEFINED "s" as? Do you know what I have defined "t" as? If the DEFINING of terms in mathematics is irrelevant, then you should have NO problems figuring out what it all means....without me DEFINING them for you.....right?

But all you are showing me is abstracts... we KNOW the names have to be shared.

Now, if you had sketched out the problem in smileys... the actual thing that the numbers are counting...

:) + :) = :):)

It doesn't matter what language we are using.

The whole point I was trying to make is that 1 is 1 because that is the name we give to a single thing... like a smiley face.

The other poster said that we 'define' 1 + 1 = 2... but we really dont... that is just shorthand for something we can observe.

Grave_n_idle:

But you HAVE communicated to me USING body language and gestures that is how DEFINING our world all started....for instance, if we didn't DEFINE pointing a finger at something to mean, "LOOK", then how would I know to look at where you are pointing?.....What if pointing your finger to the sky meant "I have to go to the washroom"...but it we KNOW that it doesn't...Why?....because we have DEFINED it to mean "look at that" ...but what if we didn't even have those basic communication skills...HOW do you COMMUNICATE a concept to someone WITHOUT using a series of DEFINED gesturing, language, writing or symbols?

wow this forum has deteriorated ;)
we've gotten wayyy off topic

Grave_n_idle:

But we can't communicate, make sense of, or understand an observation that we HAVEN'T defined.....like I said, PLEASE share mathematics with me without telling me what the DEFINITIONS of the symbols are. You already stated that the names of the symbols need to be shared in order for them to be communicated....but in sharing it with another, aren't you "DEFINING" what the symbol means? It all comes down to the fact that we DEFINE everything in our world!!!

Grave_n_idle:

But you HAVE communicated to me USING body language and gestures that is how DEFINING our world all started....for instance, if we didn't DEFINE pointing a finger at something to mean, "LOOK", then how would I know to look at where you are pointing?.....What if pointing your finger to the sky meant "I have to go to the washroom"...but it we KNOW that it doesn't...Why?....because we have DEFINED it to mean "look at that" ...but what if we didn't even have those basic communication skills...HOW do you COMMUNICATE a concept to someone WITHOUT using a series of DEFINED gesturing, language, writing or symbols?

Yes - symbolism and gesture is how definition of the world STARTED. When you learn a new language, you learn what the other person calls a 'thing'... you don't start off trying to explain how to direct a light opera.

People were counting things long before they were discussing that with each other... there is even science to suggest that newborns understand the implications of addition/subtraction - long before they can conceive the mth of the situation.

As for my pointing to the sky... perhaps you wouldn't understand immediately... but if I gestured a few times (especially if I named the things I pointed at... regardless of a shared language) you'd get the drift.

How did you know that the tap on the arm means 'look at me'? You don't... but you can instantly tell that it is an attempt to attract your attention.

It's a very pretty meteor-shower, and it makes you smile... how do I know you are happy?


How do you communicate a concept to someone with NO shared defined langauge? That is where the old 'point-and-name' technique comes in... and it's certainly not foolproof... but it IS surprisingly effective.

But, of ALL the communications you might use... one of the EASIEST is the basic language of math... because, no matter what we two call them, my one stone and your one stone make a total of two stones.

In any langauge... anywhere in the world.

Which is, of course, why the basic 'key' of the plaque in Voyager, is math.

Grave_n_idle:

But we can't communicate, make sense of, or understand an observation that we HAVEN'T defined.....like I said, PLEASE share mathematics with me without telling me what the DEFINITIONS of the symbols are. You already stated that the names of the symbols need to be shared in order for them to be communicated....but in sharing it with another, aren't you "DEFINING" what the symbol means? It all comes down to the fact that we DEFINE everything in our world!!!

I have to write it, because we are using the internet to comminicate in a words-based format.

Imagine I am standing next to you... how many of us are there? Is it the same amount of people as BEFORE I was standing there?

No. Definitions aside, there is a very noticable and real difference between you standing there, and me standing next to you.

And, if Straughn is there too.... again, there is a noticable difference.

What if you and Straughn are there?

You can clearly see that there are more people than when you are alone... but not as many as when all three of us were there. It is somehow 'the same' as when you and I were stood together... even though the specific people have changed.

Obviously - if I was not communicating from thousands of miles away, this would be easier to explain... I'd just get people to come stand together... and ask you to define the difference in different situations.

Which is the heart of math.

Exactly - see, even Neo Rogolia can find evidence of Jesus as a False Prophet.



Actually, I was stating that the Pharisees were wrong in deeming him a false prophet, as he cast out demons.

Actually, I was stating that the Pharisees were wrong in deeming him a false prophet, as he cast out demons.

Really? I thought you were providing evidence that he performed miracles in God's name, and yet taught a different covenant.

I don't see how the Pharisees were proved 'wrong'.... quite the opposite, I would have said... in the light of Deuteronomy.

Feork founser youdns dutoewmns wprsnfng!!!


I'd have to get to know you better, first.... ;)

Grave_n_idle:

Yes, I would agree, math is one of the easiest forms of language...and I was never saying that I question it's EXISTANCE....I KNOW that it exists....but I can only PROVE/SHOW/COMMUNICATE it's EXISTANCE because the concepts of mathematics have been DEFINED and the DEFINITIONS are universal, so we can communicate mathematical concepts to each other.

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.

There's only one thing more illogical than believing in God.And that's believing in nothing.

I'm bush like. There is a God. God made me president. He told me so himself. Thats how I became president. How else could I have become president, when I ran against those tree huggin hippies who are called "laberals". If you dont watch your mouth I'll sick my good republican supporters, shit, I mean good friends the 700 club on you.

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.

... first post

I'm bush like. There is a God. God made me president. He told me so himself. Thats how I became president. How else could I have become president, when I ran against those tree huggin hippies who are called "laberals". If you dont watch your mouth I'll sick my good republican supporters, shit, I mean good friends the 700 club on you.

...last post


I think this proves my point :)

Grave_n_idle:

Of course you would have an understanding that there was a difference between 1, 2, and 3...but how do you communicate that concept to someone else without using some form of DEFINITION system? Of course, you would SEE the difference between "alone", "a couple", and a threesome"...but how do you COMMUNICATE those concepts to someone else if you couldn't DEFINE those concepts?

Novaya Zealand:

I have a question for you:

Would you know how sweet a choclate chip cookie is if you had no concept of how bitter a lemon is?

I think that God wants us out of free will because He wants us to love Him and obey Him freely.....but how would we know HOW wonderful His presence is and what a gift heaven will be if we don't experience a little bit of Satan's world, too? I think it all comes down to the fact that God wants us to KNOW how AWESOME His world is when we see it and experience it....so we will truly know what a gift we have in Him and his Love. He knew that everything would happen the way it has and knows what will happen in the future....and He also knows who will/won't choose Him even before they do...but He lets US make that choice because He only wants those who WANT Him to be in heaven with Him.....even though he WANTS all of us to WANT Him.

Grave_n_idle:

Of course you would have an understanding that there was a difference between 1, 2, and 3...but how do you communicate that concept to someone else without using some form of DEFINITION system? Of course, you would SEE the difference between "alone", "a couple", and a threesome"...but how do you COMMUNICATE those concepts to someone else if you couldn't DEFINE those concepts?

Because numbers are not concepts... they are just labels.

'Addition' is a concept, and you explain it by taking a thing, and putting another thing with it.

You don't need to communicate the 'concept' of numbers with someone... they just represent a physical reality... you just have to share the names or show them how to draw your symbols.

Novaya Zealand:

I have a question for you:

Would you know how sweet a choclate chip cookie is if you had no concept of how bitter a lemon is?


What IS it with you, and food!

I'm starving, now.... :)

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.

... first post

I'm bush like. There is a God. God made me president. He told me so himself. Thats how I became president. How else could I have become president, when I ran against those tree huggin hippies who are called "laberals". If you dont watch your mouth I'll sick my good republican supporters, shit, I mean good friends the 700 club on you.

...last post


I think this proves my point :)



Because the statements "are not hellbound" and "possessing free will" are contradictory, therefore the proposition is invalid. It's like asking "If God is all-powerful, can he create a rock he can't lift?" Also, having omniscience does not necessarily mean He will choose to see into the future.

Grave_n_idle:

I WAS hungry when I wrote that....but I have eaten now...so I'm all better....FOOD is a wonderful thing....and I love to EAT good food!! :) In order to share mathematics with someone you would have to DEFINE the labels behind it....which is still "DEFINING" no matter HOW you look at it:

If I tell you p=1 and s=2, so p+p=s

I am still DEFINING p and s!

Without me telling you what p and s means, you would have no clue what p+p=s is....you would only know that putting to p's together makes s

For instance, it could also mean 2+2=4...but since I have DEFINED p to mean "1" and s to mean "2"...you KNOW that the it means 1+1=2 and not 2+2=4.

Grave_n_idle:

I WAS hungry when I wrote that....but I have eaten now...so I'm all better....FOOD is a wonderful thing....and I love to EAT good food!! :) In order to share mathematics with someone you would have to DEFINE the labels behind it....which is still "DEFINING" no matter HOW you look at it:

If I tell you p=1 and s=2, so p+p=s

I am still DEFINING p and s!

Without me telling you what p and s means, you would have no clue what p+p=s is....you would only know that putting to p's together makes s

For instance, it could also mean 2+2=4...but since I have DEFINED p to mean "1" and s to mean "2"...you KNOW that the it means 1+1=2 and not 2+2=4.

Aye, agreed. That's why I said it's easier to show this in 'real space' than over the internet... because we are ALWAYS going to be constrained by words on this format.

Do you not see what I mean about the visual thing? You show two stones being added the one to the other, and the resulting collection of two stones?

And, no matter what you add one of, to another one of, you always end up with two?

The alphanumerics we choose to represent our 'numbers' are NOT the numbers... they just represent them. The real 'number' is the count of physical objects.


I also love food, although I am beginning to think you are a mean and bad tempter... for your repeat FOOD and EATing comments. :) I just went and had some cake, so I am all yummed-up, too. :)

Novaya Zealand:

I have a question for you:

Would you know how sweet a choclate chip cookie is if you had no concept of how bitter a lemon is?

I'll make sure to punch people I like, so that they can appreciate me even more when I'm being nice.

Anyway, the thing that I rarely see asked is this: Why send people to hell? If god loves everyone, why bother punishing any of them in the afterlife? Especially in such a way that they can never be redeemed or escape? It's not like god HAS to follow any rules regarding punishments, after all, he makes ALL the rules.

Grave_n_idle:

LOL...I AM the meanest tempter out there when it comes to food!! :D Yes, I totally see your visual concept using stones...I was never saying that mathematics can't be proven...I was just saying that in order to PROVE it there needed to be a universal DEFINING of mathematical terms. One day a guy took a stone and said, "one".....and put beside it another stone and said, "two"...and that is HOW he communicated adding objects together to other people...but he could ONLY share this information with someone through the use of DEFINITIONS!! :)

I'll make sure to punch people I like, so that they can appreciate me even more when I'm being nice.

Anyway, the thing that I rarely see asked is this: Why send people to hell? If god loves everyone, why bother punishing any of them in the afterlife? Especially in such a way that they can never be redeemed or escape? It's not like god HAS to follow any rules regarding punishments, after all, he makes ALL the rules.



Perfection and imperfection cannot coexist, therefore God must seperate those who are wicked from Him. Those who go to Hell have had many opportunities to seek redemption, yet they refused to do so. God, as the perfect moral Agent, must disseminate justice to those who violate His will.

The Celestial Peace:

Because God wants to know that His people WANT him....He didn't want puppets that just follow His commands, otherwise that is exactly what we would be. If you knew nothing but His love and His perfection, would you be thankful for it? You cannot be thankful for something unless you know the other side of the coin. For instance, if there was no such thing as poverty or homelessness or famine or anything like that, would we be thankful that we have money to spend, roofs over our heads or food to eat (like cookies or lemons!!)? Human nature dictates that we would take those things for granted if we didn't know WHAT life could be like without those blessings.

Everyone I personally think you guys should all avoid this topic
Religion is something very dangerious to discuss due to the fact in the end no religion makes sense you just have to have faith in it and believe in what you believe is right


Sigh since I know everyone is going to ignore this *takes out umbrella* everyone watch out for the blood splats

Everyone I personally think you guys should all avoid this topic
Religion is something very dangerious to discuss due to the fact in the end no religion makes sense you just have to have faith in it and believe in what you believe is right


Sigh since I know everyone is going to ignore this *takes out umbrella* everyone watch out for the blood splats



You've just thrown two millenia of theology out the window :mad:

You've just thrown two millenia of theology out the window :mad:

EKKK *begs for mercy*

This is a very sensitive topic. Many christians I'm sure would not feel that their religion is built on faulty logic. Many would say perhaps that God creates those destined for Hell to balance those who would be destined for Heaven. After all, sice good and evil are opposites, how can one compare good against anything if there is no evil, and thus how can it exist? Plus, who knows where the world would be without the sinners. Maybe an All-Knowing christian God knows something that mere mortals do not about the future, that requires all the sinners to follow their own path? I fell that is what a christian might say if to respond to the question. A rational christian. I know many might say something like, "He dosen't need to explain Himself to YOU!" But, since that is hardly rational, I stand by my former explanation.

Well the sheer fact that God didn't understand us humans and why we act so vainly, and had to actually become a human for a short time, feel the pain of and die as a human, to understand and save us means that he isn't infact omniscient. I feel sorry for all the non-Jews before Christ, they never had a chance at salvation. In fact, the idea of this 'God in progress' isn't very new, some evangelicals have said that god is simply going through the motions, that he isn't ominscient and omnipotent, which would explain the intrinsic imperfections in his creations, he simply didn't have the wisdom to do it right. That would explain why so many are damned and so on. But many Christians themselves would state that debate such as this about God is useless because we an never understand him in our limited form and understanding, which may seem just like a 'I don't know so don't bother asking' type approach but it makes sense, here's a god (no, not a god but a higher enlightened spiritual being, but not omniscient) that makes humanity, but it goes wrong, because we are not autonomons and have free will, we rebell, because god doesn't know what it's like to be us he can't identify our sufferings. e.g if we create a virus, do we understand what it would feel like to be that virus, no, but nonetheless we had the power to create it, but not understand it. So god just thought we were being rebellious and damned us, not knowing or understanding why we did these things, same for lucifer and the angels too. So eventually we became so out of control in our rebelliousness from God that he came to earth himself as a human, in order to save us so that we wouldn't be damned, because he damn sure wouldn't have been able to understand and therefore save us if we was in this higher form. Christianity should therefore accept that there god is infact a 'god in progress', that he is infact still understanding the universe. But of course they won't, and for good reason, who the hell would won't to worship a being who is effectively saying 'Hey! I'm not there yet', that is the only explaination of how Christianity can work in a logical sense. Research the god in progress theory with origin of evil and deity related philosphical and ethical debate over the net.

Well the sheer fact that God didn't understand us humans and why we act so vainly, and had to actually become a human for a short time, feel the pain of and die as a human, to understand and save us means that he isn't infact omniscient. I feel sorry for all the non-Jews before Christ, they never had a chance at salvation. In fact, the idea of this 'God in progress' isn't very new, some evangelicals have said that god is simply going through the motions, that he isn't ominscient and omnipotent, which would explain the intrinsic imperfections in his creations, he simply didn't have the wisdom to do it right. That would explain why so many are damned and so on. But many Christians themselves would state that debate such as this about God is useless because we an never understand him in our limited form and understanding, which may seem just like a 'I don't know so don't bother asking' type approach but it makes sense, here's a god (no, not a god but a higher enlightened spiritual being, but not omniscient) that makes humanity, but it goes wrong, because we are not autonomons and have free will, we rebell, because god doesn't know what it's like to be us he can't identify our sufferings. e.g if we create a virus, do we understand what it would feel like to be that virus, no, but nonetheless we had the power to create it, but not understand it. So god just thought we were being rebellious and damned us, not knowing or understanding why we did these things, same for lucifer and the angels too. So eventually we became so out of control in our rebelliousness from God that he came to earth himself as a human, in order to save us so that we wouldn't be damned, because he damn sure wouldn't have been able to understand and therefore save us if we was in this higher form. Christianity should therefore accept that there god is infact a 'god in progress', that he is infact still understanding the universe. But of course they won't, and for good reason, who the hell would won't to worship a being who is effectively saying 'Hey! I'm not there yet', that is the only explaination of how Christianity can work in a logical sense. Research the god in progress theory with origin of evil and deity related philosphical and ethical debate over the net.


1. He became a human in order to endure the tribulations and temptations of man, so that He might justify His sacrifice, not out of lack of knowledge concerning the human experience.

2. No, the "God in progress" doctrine is heretical. God is unchanging:


Hebrews 6:13-20.

13When God made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself, 14saying, "I will surely bless you and give you many descendants."[c] 15And so after waiting patiently, Abraham received what was promised.
16Men swear by someone greater than themselves, and the oath confirms what is said and puts an end to all argument. 17Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. 18God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. 19We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.



3. The Gentiles prior to Christ's coming were not automatically damned, rather they had their own moral code to live by.

4. God, in His infinite wisdom, did not punish rebellion out of ignorance, rather, He did so in order to fulfill his perfect nature: He must uphold his dictates through justice.



When one finds a discrepancy they cannot reconcile with the nature of God, they must remember: Our wisdom is naught in comparison to God's. When we and God differ in our definitions of righteousness, it is we who are wrong.

Because the statements "are not hellbound" and "possessing free will" are contradictory, therefore the proposition is invalid. It's like asking "If God is all-powerful, can he create a rock he can't lift?"

Wrong. Tell me, if the individual has the choice between loving god and going to heaven or rejecting god and going to hell, and this individual has free will; he can choose either heaven or hell correct? The actual choice he makes does not matter to whether or not he had a choice to begin with. One person can choose to go to heaven.

Let's up the ante, we have two people each are presented with the same choice by virtue of existing in this plane of reallity. Can both not choose to go to heaven or to hell? Surely two people can go to heaven by choosing god.

Let's go further. We have five people who live and are presented the choice between heaven or hell, to love god or reject him. They can all choose to go to heaven correct? Which they pick does not influence whether they had the choice.

A hundred people, same choice, same free will. They can all go to heaven if they choose God. Whether they do or not is up to them but as already mentioned, the choice they make does not change the choices they have available.

A million people, same choice, same conditions. What choice they make doesn't change the choices presented.

Finally, at the end of the thought experiment, we have humanity. Each individual has the capacity to either love god or not, to enter heaven or hell. Each one could enter heaven if they made the right choice. Following the logic above they can all choose to go to heaven becasue the choice they make does not change whether they had a choice to begin with nor what those choices were. Thus your claims that some humans must go to hell is a blatant contradiction with the notion of choice.

Also, having omniscience does not necessarily mean He will choose to see into the future.

Wrong. If one is all knowing he will know the future whether he wants to or not.

Perfection and imperfection cannot coexist, therefore God must seperate those who are wicked from Him. Those who go to Hell have had many opportunities to seek redemption, yet they refused to do so. God, as the perfect moral Agent, must disseminate justice to those who violate His will.

No, as a perfect moral agent he would administer measured justice and quite frankly there is no crime that can be committed on this Earth that would call for eternal torment. Furthermore, instead of justice he could administer mercy and forgiveness, two qualities also assumed to follow from perfect morallity. Where is mercy in eternal hellfire? Where is forgiveness in house of Hades? Furthermore, God could cleanse any "wicked" spirits rather that remove them from him.

A. Each individual has the capacity to either love god or not, to enter heaven or hell. Each one could enter heaven if they made the right choice. .

Unless by right choice you mean self interested choice, the problem (for me) is that, choosing to love God to get out of hell and into heaven would be contrary to their morals. That someone should have to act immorally to go to heaven, and by following their morals will end up hell, just seems very silly to me.

The bottom line for me is that if the God described in the bible exists as described, following such a God would be immoral, and loving it, probably not possible. I do not see that I have any choice in this. I do not see that I can love the God described in the bible.

To me this is why christianity is not logical, it is self contrary. One should act morally to get into heaven seems to be the underlying message, yet to get into heaven, I would have to act immorally.

No, as a perfect moral agent he would administer measured justice and quite frankly there is no crime that can be committed on this Earth that would call for eternal torment. Furthermore, instead of justice he could administer mercy and forgiveness, two qualities also assumed to follow from perfect morallity. Where is mercy in eternal hellfire? Where is forgiveness in house of Hades? Furthermore, God could cleanse any "wicked" spirits rather that remove them from him.



No to yourself actually, any sin against eternal perfection is itself eternal, and therefore necessitates eternal retribution. Also, He gives mercy and forgiveness to those who will accept the sacrifice He Himself made for our stupidity and selfish sins. Finally, those spirits have to be willing to accept the cleansing Christ offered, if not, they deserve punishment.

Unless by right choice you mean self interested choice, the problem (for me) is that, choosing to love God to get out of hell and into heaven would be contrary to their morals. That someone should have to act immorally to go to heaven, and by following their morals will end up hell, just seems very silly to me.

The bottom line for me is that if the God described in the bible exists as described, following such a God would be immoral, and loving it, probably not possible. I do not see that I have any choice in this. I do not see that I can love the God described in the bible.

To me this is why christianity is not logical, it is self contrary. One should act morally to get into heaven seems to be the underlying message, yet to get into heaven, I would have to act immorally.



That's because you have a misconception of the God described, a misconception fostered by Western thought and a Western sense of morality. He never punishes unnecessarily, those whom he condemns are fully deserving of it. Specifically, the Amalekites and other nations Israel conquered. They were some of the worst nations on earth at that time, for instance: They had marauding parties attack the Israelites from the rear, where the women, children and elderly moved, they sacrificed their children to idols, they engaged in ritual prostitution and unmitigated debauchery, they had an insatiable bloodlust which they exercised on innocent Israelites, etc. Those wicked individuals who oppose God are deserving of any punishment they receive. It wasn't Israel attacking "innocent civilians", rather, they eliminated those who were thoroughly corrupt. To oppose a God who is just...that is where true immorality lies.

That's because you have a misconception of the God described, a misconception fostered by Western thought and a Western sense of morality. He never punishes unnecessarily, those whom he condemns are fully deserving of it.
I am not suffering any misconception. My comments refer specifically to God as described in the bible. If the bible is incorrect and God is otherwise than described in the bible, then my comments are still true, since they refer to the God described in the bible, as that God is described in the bible.

Specifically, the Amalekites and other nations Israel conquered. They were some of the worst nations on earth at that time, for instance: They had marauding parties attack the Israelites from the rear, where the women, children and elderly moved, they sacrificed their children to idols, they engaged in ritual prostitution and unmitigated debauchery, they had an insatiable bloodlust which they exercised on innocent Israelites, etc. Those wicked individuals who oppose God are deserving of any punishment they receive. It wasn't Israel attacking "innocent civilians", rather, they eliminated those who were thoroughly corrupt. To oppose a God who is just...that is where true immorality lies.
There is nothing just in the story of Lot that I can see. If a God could judge such a person 'righteous' for having taken the action of offering up his virgin daughters to all the men in a couple of cities, to do what they may with them, then my morality prevents me from following that God (and in fact requires me to condem any such God), and I dont see it likely that I could ever love such a God either.

Unless by right choice you mean self interested choice, the problem (for me) is that, choosing to love God to get out of hell and into heaven would be contrary to their morals. That someone should have to act immorally to go to heaven, and by following their morals will end up hell, just seems very silly to me.

The bottom line for me is that if the God described in the bible exists as described, following such a God would be immoral, and loving it, probably not possible. I do not see that I have any choice in this. I do not see that I can love the God described in the bible.

To me this is why christianity is not logical, it is self contrary. One should act morally to get into heaven seems to be the underlying message, yet to get into heaven, I would have to act immorally.

Granted. At the same time though, you aren't likely to get much leeway when you approach the christian from that point of view.

I am not suffering any misconception. My comments refer specifically to God as described in the bible. If the bible is incorrect and God is otherwise than described in the bible, then my comments are still true, since they refer to the God described in the bible, as that God is described in the bible.


There is nothing just in the story of Lot that I can see. If a God could judge such a person 'righteous' for having taken the action of offering up his virgin daughters to all the men in a couple of cities, to do what they may with them, then my morality prevents me from that God, and I dont see it likely that I could ever love such a God either.


Where did it ever say God approved of Lot's actions in that case? The Bible records many things that it doesn't approve of.

Religion: A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Belief: Religious faith. [wordnet.princeton]

Read that. Twice. Religion is defined as a strong belief in supnatural, and belief is synonomous with faith. Faith means that you assume something based on an instinct. It cannot be proven. That's why it is called "faith." Thus trying to prove a religion is impossible and goes against the very definition of religion. Same thing goes for atheism, and arguing against a religion.

It requires some degree of faith to either say something exists, or something doesn't exist. You do not know FOR A FACT that a god or gods do not exist, just as you do not know FOR A FACT that there isn't an Invisible Pink Unicorn behind you. You can safely assume there isn't, but you cannot know.

Stop arguing over religion. Religion is based on faith. Faith is a personal assumption. Assumptions are just that, assumptions. Anyone who says otherwise needs to look in a dictionary.

No to yourself actually, any sin against eternal perfection is itself eternal, and therefore necessitates eternal retribution. No to you actually. Sin is transitory. One lie does not mean one always lie. Once giving oneself to a false god does not mean the converted are still giving themselves to a false god. To claim that sin is eternal is stupid and to claim that any sin warrants eternal punishment is inane. Also, He gives mercy and forgiveness to those who will accept the sacrifice He Himself made for our stupidity and selfish sins. When? Where does it say it must be made on this side of the grave? Surely mercy and forgiveness should be made regardless of who is the target of them. Turn the other cheek only when they repent? I think not. Perhaps the lord almighty can start practicing what he preaches and forgiving us poor sinners whether we know we did wrong or not. Finally, those spirits have to be willing to accept the cleansing Christ offered, if not, they deserve punishment.
Tell me something. Say you are wrong, you die and end up at the gates of heaven and are told that, for the hell of it, the Islamic faith has it right and that you are a sinner in violation of Allah's law and will henceforth be condemend to eternal hellfire. You had your chance to repent and accept the law of Allah, you have after all run accross Islamic people who will tell you of their faith, chose not to convert, and are therefore damned. Do you deserve eternal torment?

Where did it ever say God approved of Lot's actions in that case? The Bible records many things that it doesn't approve of.
As a sole result of the actions I described, Lot was found to be the only righteous man in the two cities. Are you suggesting you are not aware of the story of Lot and why he was judged righteous and thus saved from the fate visited on his fellows?

No to you actually. Sin is transitory. One lie does not mean one always lie. Once giving oneself to a false god does not mean the converted are still giving themselves to a false god. To claim that sin is eternal is stupid and to claim that any sin warrants eternal punishment is inane.


You're wrong, the slightest sin is intolerable by God. Once you sin, you are seperated from the presence of God; you are already in Hell's grasp. No matter how many acts of righteousness we perform, the acts of sin outweigh them infinitely. It is not our morality that determines our fate, as we are all wicked, rather it is our acceptance of Christ's sacrifice:



2 Timothy 1:8-10 8So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, 9who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, 10but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.


Ephesians 2:6-10 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.


Titus 3:1-8 1Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
3At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. 4But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. 8This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.



When? Where does it say it must be made on this side of the grave? Surely mercy and forgiveness should be made regardless of who is the target of them. Turn the other cheek only when they repent? I think not. Perhaps the lord almighty can start practicing what he preaches and forgiving us poor sinners whether we know we did wrong or not


It says it in pretty much most of the New Testament...

And justice demands He punish us when we sin, if we will not be redeemed. It's not hypocrisy on His part as He is incapable of sin. What you are demanding would make Him unjust, and therefore imperfect.



Tell me something. Say you are wrong, you die and end up at the gates of heaven and are told that, for the hell of it, the Islamic faith has it right and that you are a sinner in violation of Allah's law and will henceforth be condemend to eternal hellfire. You had your chance to repent and accept the law of Allah, you have after all run accross Islamic people who will tell you of their faith, chose not to convert, and are therefore damned. Do you deserve eternal torment?


Tell me, did Muhammed perform miracles? Or wait, how about this:


Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

As a sole result of the actions I described, Lot was found to be the only righteous man in the two cities. Are you suggesting you are not aware of the story of Lot and why he was judged righteous and thus saved from the fate visited on his fellows?



Did this not occur before Lot hastily offered his daughters? Are you suggesting that you are not aware of chronological succession?

You're wrong, the slightest sin is intolerable by God. Once you sin, you are seperated from the presence of God; you are already in Hell's grasp. No matter how many acts of righteousness we perform, the acts of sin outweigh them infinitely. It is not our morality that determines our fate, as we are all wicked, rather it is our acceptance of Christ's sacrifice:
I am fairly sure I reject every line of that...

I am fairly sure God can at least tolerate some sin, otherwise he is a total wimp. Further, he admits people with sin into heaven or otherwise it would just be God with his homeboy Jesus. Further, there is nothing that requires one sin to be an offense worthy of eternal damnation other than an incredibly thin skinned God. I do not believe one act of sin can outweigh all good no matter how inconsequential the sin and how great the good. Christ himself lied, surely you wouldn't suggest his wiping away the sins of humanity wasn't good enough to smooth over that one act. Further, I do not consider all to be wicked. Surely those who die in birth never had the chance to sin.


2 Timothy 1:8-10 8So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, 9who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, 10but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:38:45 RSV)


Ephesians 2:6-10 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:38:45 RSV)



Titus 3:1-8 1Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
3At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. 4But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. 8This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone."You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:38:45 RSV)

Isn't it interesting that God seems to be incapable of turning the other cheek to those who slight against him?




It says it in pretty much most of the New Testament...

And justice demands He punish us when we sin, if we will not be redeemed. It's not hypocrisy on His part as He is incapable of sin. What you are demanding would make Him unjust, and therefore imperfect.

What you are suggesting is that he cannot repair our sins with anything other than eternal damnation, thus severly reducing his ability. I would make a much greater omnipotent being than God would if he can't even figure out how to do that. You claiming he is so limited in capacity is demanding he is imperfect.

A perfect good could avoid any and all suffering.


Tell me, did Muhammed perform miracles? Or wait, how about this:

Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!
Utterly irrelevant to the point. Aesclepius performed miracles too, whoopty-doo.

If Islam is right and you are wrong do you deserved to be eternally damned for it, yes or no?

Did this not occur before Lot hastily offered his daughters?
No, I do not believe so, and if it did, such an act would justify the revoking of the judgement of righteousness.

Perhaps you are mistaking the offering up of the daughters with the incidents of having sex with his daughters, then knowing nothing of it when he awoke....that did actually occur after....

2. No, the "God in progress" doctrine is heretical. God is unchanging:


I'm afraid the 'god' described in the Bible, does not match the 'god' you preach:

Genesis 8:21 "And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done".


3. The Gentiles prior to Christ's coming were not automatically damned, rather they had their own moral code to live by.


Do you have a copy of it? Where is this 'moral code' that saved the Gentiles from damnation? If such a code DID exist - there is no need for Messiah to come to Gentiles.... since they were not damned anyway.

By that logic - 'Messiah' would be just about the greatest evil conceivable... since it would mean bringing the possibility of damnation to a people that were not damned to begin with.

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

God is so much above us, He knows what has to be done, and why.

God is so much above us, He knows what has to be done, and why.
again so you say

Always great to answer the hard questions with "he is beyond our ability to grasp"

What an amazing copout rather then just admiting that it is not logical

Its all good and fine to have faith ... god may be out there but if it is not logical just say so

Not quite - those Jews who oppose Messianic Jews believe that someone is coming in and stealing all the imagery from their religion, if you will, to dress up a DIFFERENT religion... just pretending they are the same faith.. and 'suckering' those who do not know the difference.

Imagine I set up a church, with all the nice crosses and stuff, and called myself the "First Baptist Church" or something like that. Once the service starts, I pull out my 'special' Bible, and we start in on my preaching about how Jesus and Satan are Jehovah's twin sons, and how Jesus stole Satan's birthright, and eventually murdered him. He then received 'the mark of Cain' -as a BLESSING, from his father, to enable him to become immortal.

You like my service? You think it is true to what the Baptists/Christians/Protestants believe?


As far as I am concerned, you are free to set up any kind of church you like. I won't protest unless you break to laws of the country. It's your right. Heck, that's what the Mormons and the JWs seem to do. What's the problem?


More to the point - do you think it's OKAY for me to teach that? Do you think I am treating Christian religion fairly, or do you think I am taking the Christian scripture and trappings, and using it for my own ends?


I may think you silly to write your own Bible and expect others to believe it, but I'm not going to stage a protest about it. I probably wouldn't even say a bad word about you. You wouldn't be the first to do that with Christianity. You would be fighting against God, not me.


Re-read my last few posts on this thread. I have clearly said that I do not consider myself an expert. But, I DO have experience, and I've done a fair amount of research. You don't have to beleive me about anything I say, you can research it all for yourself.


OK, I read your posts, but after I had posted this one. But I think you can avoid such criticisms in the future by wording your posts carefully the first time, so that you don't come across as being the expert.


The problem, as I perceive it, is that most 'Christians' DON'T research anything that might cast a shadow over their own scripture.


They don't have to, unless they want to debate with experts like you. And then, it might be wise to be somewhat familiar with the other side. I agree.


I'll just present two examples... there are many more:

1) God sends 'evil spirits': Judges 9:23 "Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech".

2) God causes 'evil': Judges 9:57 "And all the evil of the men of Shechem did God render upon their heads."

Maybe you should check several more translations. How about updating that Old King James Bible of yours, and can I recommend the New Living Translation.


New Living Translation copyright © 1996 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers.
Judges 9:23
God stirred up trouble[a] between Abimelech and the people of Shechem, and they revolted.
Footnotes:
Judges 9:23 Hebrew sent a disturbing spirit

57 God also punished the men of Shechem for all their evil. So the curse of Jotham son of Gideon came true.

Which implies that there is some special skill that is:

a) present in some people, but not others.
b) capable of discerning something that cannot be discerned any other way.

Surely, it is JUST as LOGICAL to assume:

a) The skill is imaginary - and people see what they WANT to see... or
b) The sense is false, and the vision is delusion?

Not that I'm saying that IS the case - but you must admit, relying on a sense that only the 'believer' has, is only as logical as the idea that 'believers' are just self-delusional?

The Christian view, as I understand it, is that God gives sight to the blind. But they have to want it first.

As far as your conclusion goes, logic won't tell you if the people who don't see God are more or less delusional than those who do. We need more evidence. We would have to look at their lives, compile the results, and draw the conclusions. Even then, the graphs might look a bit blurred, since some believers are less likely to live consistently with what they believe, while some non-believers live in a way that would put the believers to shame. So we would have to include only those (on both sides) who lived consistently with what they believed. Furthermore, we would have to collect data at several points in their lives. Then we could ask the question, does believing in God make you more delusional or less so. What do you think of that experiment?

The Christian view, as I understand it, is that God gives sight to the blind. But they have to want it first.

As far as your conclusion goes, logic won't tell you if the people who don't see God are more or less delusional than those who do. We need more evidence. We would have to look at their lives, compile the results, and draw the conclusions. Even then, the graphs might look a bit blurred, since some believers are less likely to live consistently with what they believe, while some non-believers live in a way that would put the believers to shame. So we would have to include only those (on both sides) who lived consistently with what they believed. Furthermore, we would have to collect data at several points in their lives. Then we could ask the question, does believing in God make you more delusional or less so. What do you think of that experiment?

Erm... that's not what my conclusion said...

I said "relying on a sense that only the 'believer' has, is only as logical as the idea that 'believers' are just self-delusional"...

Other than that, great experiment. Unfortunately, it doesn't do a blessed thing to answer the question I posed.

As far as I am concerned, you are free to set up any kind of church you like. I won't protest unless you break to laws of the country. It's your right. Heck, that's what the Mormons and the JWs seem to do. What's the problem?


In what way do have Witnesses perverted the scripture? Having talked with a number of Witnesses, I was quite surprised to find that they are actually much MORE faithful to the words in the book, than most Christians.

Was there anything in particular you disagree with? Or is this just one of those stereotypical attacks on other faiths?


Maybe you should check several more translations. How about updating that Old King James Bible of yours, and can I recommend the New Living Translation.


How can a Bible be out of date?

Either the word of god is eternal or it isn't...

Regardless, I only use the KJV for the poetic feel, I actually read the scripture from the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek.


New Living Translation copyright © 1996 by Tyndale Charitable Trust. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers.
Judges 9:23
God stirred up trouble[a] between Abimelech and the people of Shechem, and they revolted.
Footnotes:
Judges 9:23 Hebrew sent a disturbing spirit

57 God also punished the men of Shechem for all their evil. So the curse of Jotham son of Gideon came true.

Judges 9:23 is being horribly mistranslated in your 'living translation'.

I need you to justify for me, why I should accept "God stirred up trouble" over "God sent an evil spirit"

Judges 9:23 (elohiym shalach Ra' Ruwach) - translates literally as: "God sent evil spirits". Explain to me why I shouldn't read it as such?

Judges 9:57 (Ra' enowsh shekem 'elohim shuwh Ro'sh) - translates literally as "Evil men (of) Shekem God rendered (upon their) heads". Again, explain why I should read your pop translation?

*BUMP*
Gravy's got a live one here!

*gets the popcorn*

*BUMP*
Gravy's got a live one here!

*gets the popcorn*
He is one of the few on here that actually reads the original language

In what way do have Witnesses perverted the scripture? Having talked with a number of Witnesses, I was quite surprised to find that they are actually much MORE faithful to the words in the book, than most Christians.

Was there anything in particular you disagree with? Or is this just one of those stereotypical attacks on other faiths?


I don't see it as an attack on their faith. I was commenting on how they have altered some interpretations in the Bible from those of the early Christians. For example, the JWs say that only a little flock of 144,000 go to heaven and rule with Christ.
Christ is God's Son and is inferior to Him.
Christ was first of God's creations.
Christ died on a stake, not a cross.
Taking blood into body through mouth or veins violates God's laws.
http://www.watchtower.org/library/jt/index.htm?article=article_01.htm

Once again, they are entitled to their opinions, and free to carry out church services. I will not stop them. Nor will I even say a bad word about them.
And I realize that they are far more likely to accept the Bible as true than many 'Chrisians'. I think you are trying to make out that I despise people of other faiths. You are wrong if you think so.


How can a Bible be out of date?

Either the word of god is eternal or it isn't...

Regardless, I only use the KJV for the poetic feel, I actually read the scripture from the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek.


I never meant to say that the Bible was out of date, only that your translation of the Bible contains English that is out of date. There is nothing wrong with using the OKJV, for things like poetic feel, but I feel that for the purpose of debating, you should at least use something that is more up to date and scholarly. The newer translations are more careful with things like assuming God sent evil spirits, and that evil came from God. The OKJV doesn't seem to differentiate between the words 'punishment' and 'evil'.


Judges 9:23 is being horribly mistranslated in your 'living translation'.

I need you to justify for me, why I should accept "God stirred up trouble" over "God sent an evil spirit"

Judges 9:23 (elohiym shalach Ra' Ruwach) - translates literally as: "God sent evil spirits". Explain to me why I shouldn't read it as such?

Judges 9:57 (Ra' enowsh shekem 'elohim shuwh Ro'sh) - translates literally as "Evil men (of) Shekem God rendered (upon their) heads". Again, explain why I should read your pop translation?

The 'pop' translation was put together by Bible scholars and theologians. I suppose they would have a better idea of what the ancient writer was trying to communicate than either you or I. You might be well read, Grave, but you are only one chap, while the pop translation was put together by a large committee of professionals. This is their consensus. It's also what I understood the piece of scripture to say, back in the days when all I had was an OKJV.

Erm... that's not what my conclusion said...

I said "relying on a sense that only the 'believer' has, is only as logical as the idea that 'believers' are just self-delusional"...

Other than that, great experiment. Unfortunately, it doesn't do a blessed thing to answer the question I posed.

I thought I answered that when I mentioned that logic won't tell you who is more delusional, the believer or the nonbeliever. That is why I wouldn't rely on a sense that only the believer has to show that he has the more realistic belief system. It would not be logical. Nor have I ever suggested one should do this. It would indeed be only as logical as the claim that believers are self-delusional. That is why we would need more data to answer the question of who is more delusional. And that is why an experiment like I mentioned above MAY help to resolve the question.

I don't see it as an attack on their faith. I was commenting on how they have altered some interpretations in the Bible from those of the early Christians. For example, the JWs say that only a little flock of 144,000 go to heaven and rule with Christ.
Christ is God's Son and is inferior to Him.
Christ was first of God's creations.
Christ died on a stake, not a cross.
Taking blood into body through mouth or veins violates God's laws.
http://www.watchtower.org/library/jt/index.htm?article=article_01.htm

Once again, they are entitled to their opinions, and free to carry out church services. I will not stop them. Nor will I even say a bad word about them.
And I realize that they are far more likely to accept the Bible as true than many 'Chrisians'. I think you are trying to make out that I despise people of other faiths. You are wrong if you think so.


And, yet - if you stop and look at those 'beliefs' - you'll find that they are BETTER scripturally supported than many of the mainstream Christian ones. The Bible DOES, indeed, specify in Revelation, a specific 144,000 who get to sit before the throne of God, does it not? Is there not specific detail of the Kingdom of Heaven, on Earth? Witnesses seem to believe it a true, physical resurrection... which is better supported than some kind of 'spirit' resurrection.

And yet, you speak dismissively of the Witnesses... while, I would argue, they are possibly the ONLY 'christian' sect that follows a LITERAL scripture.


I never meant to say that the Bible was out of date, only that your translation of the Bible contains English that is out of date. There is nothing wrong with using the OKJV, for things like poetic feel, but I feel that for the purpose of debating, you should at least use something that is more up to date and scholarly. The newer translations are more careful with things like assuming God sent evil spirits, and that evil came from God. The OKJV doesn't seem to differentiate between the words 'punishment' and 'evil'.


The KJV IS flawed. Any Bible that IS NOT in the native langauges is flawed... which is why these new 'Aramaic' translations are so popular - because they use less corrupted scriptures, on which to base their translation.

You are mistaken if you believe I rely on the KJV for MEANING, however... I ONLY follow the 'meaning' of the KJV, WHERE IT MATCHES the original language.


The 'pop' translation was put together by Bible scholars and theologians. I suppose they would have a better idea of what the ancient writer was trying to communicate than either you or I. You might be well read, Grave, but you are only one chap, while the pop translation was put together by a large committee of professionals. This is their consensus. It's also what I understood the piece of scripture to say, back in the days when all I had was an OKJV.

Then you, my friend, are a victim of propoganda. If you HONESTLY believe, that a group of people MUST automatically be more right than another group of people, JUST because they follow a received version.

I am not the ONLY person who relies on the original languages... and I see no rason why my translation of scripture is INFERIOR to the pop translation. Yes - the pop translations we have today WERE put together by large groups of people... but they also relied on CONSENSUS (i.e. alternate meanings had to be democratically approved) and TRADITION (i.e. the modern translations are BASED ON received translations)...

All of which is irrelevent. I am not debating with 'all Christians' here. I am debating with you. And, I say your translations are wrong, because they are not FAITHFUL to the Hebrew. Now, you need to justify to me, WHY it is more important to follow a tradition of translation, rather than follow a translation based on the ACTUAL 'word of god'?

Apeeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

I thought I answered that when I mentioned that logic won't tell you who is more delusional, the believer or the nonbeliever. That is why I wouldn't rely on a sense that only the believer has to show that he has the more realistic belief system. It would not be logical. Nor have I ever suggested one should do this. It would indeed be only as logical as the claim that believers are self-delusional. That is why we would need more data to answer the question of who is more delusional. And that is why an experiment like I mentioned above MAY help to resolve the question.

Okay - you win. I give up.

Twice, I've explained. Twice it's gone sailing straight over the top of your head... let's call it dead.

Okay - you win. I give up.

Twice, I've explained. Twice it's gone sailing straight over the top of your head... let's call it dead.
Dont get discouraged :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Dont get discouraged :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

No... it's all good. Braurong can have this point.

You can only arm-wrestle an egg for so long.

:fluffle:

And, yet - if you stop and look at those 'beliefs' - you'll find that they are BETTER scripturally supported than many of the mainstream Christian ones. The Bible DOES, indeed, specify in Revelation, a specific 144,000 who get to sit before the throne of God, does it not? Is there not specific detail of the Kingdom of Heaven, on Earth? Witnesses seem to believe it a true, physical resurrection... which is better supported than some kind of 'spirit' resurrection.

And yet, you speak dismissively of the Witnesses... while, I would argue, they are possibly the ONLY 'christian' sect that follows a LITERAL scripture.


Possibly, in many ways, the JWs beliefs are more literal than some mainstream Christians. I suppose there is so much variation in mainstream Christianity, it would be impossible to do such a contrast justice. However, I find it a bit strange that the JWs took the reference in Revelation about the 144,000 literally. In Rev 7, the scriptures say they were from the 12 tribes of Israel. Taking that literally means that they were to be Israelites. Most JWs probably aren't. Then in Rev 14 they are supposed to have never slept with a woman. Once again, I doubt that most JWs fall into that category. Of course, all this depends on literal interpretation. Not being a theologian, I'm actually not sure what the Apostle John was getting at with these passages.

Although I am not a JW, and don't go along with some of their beliefs, I certainly to not speak dismissively. I accept that there is truth in their beliefs, just like there is some truth in Islam. However, when they reject that Jesus was God, they are refusing to allow that God came to save them from their sin. If you think that means I despise them, I disagree. The Christian view is that every person is made in the image of God, and thus deserves my respect, regardless of what they believe. The demand for respect comes from their maker, not their beliefs.


The KJV IS flawed. Any Bible that IS NOT in the native langauges is flawed... which is why these new 'Aramaic' translations are so popular - because they use less corrupted scriptures, on which to base their translation.

You are mistaken if you believe I rely on the KJV for MEANING, however... I ONLY follow the 'meaning' of the KJV, WHERE IT MATCHES the original language.


Or it could be that you prefer to use the KJV as it suits your attempts to confuse and demonstrate flaws in the scriptures, by hiding in the translations differences. It does indeed appear that way at times.

As far as scriptures goes, I personally see it as a contribution from both man and God. The messages are from God. The writings are from man. The messages are perfect, since they come from a perfect person. The writings can be flawed, since them come from flawed humans, and are translated by flawed humans. So long as the messages are not tampered with, they remain perfect, giving light to the soul.


Then you, my friend, are a victim of propoganda. If you HONESTLY believe, that a group of people MUST automatically be more right than another group of people, JUST because they follow a received version.


No, no, that may have been how my post sounded to you, but that is not what I think. My trust is in God, that he put the correct Bible in my hands, and then helps me to understand it. It's not in a bunch of people, no matter how professional they are.


I am not the ONLY person who relies on the original languages... and I see no rason why my translation of scripture is INFERIOR to the pop translation. Yes - the pop translations we have today WERE put together by large groups of people... but they also relied on CONSENSUS (i.e. alternate meanings had to be democratically approved) and TRADITION (i.e. the modern translations are BASED ON received translations)...


OK


All of which is irrelevent. I am not debating with 'all Christians' here. I am debating with you. And, I say your translations are wrong, because they are not FAITHFUL to the Hebrew. Now, you need to justify to me, WHY it is more important to follow a tradition of translation, rather than follow a translation based on the ACTUAL 'word of god'?

Apeeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

Firstly, since I am not a theologian, I am going to decline your offer to go head to head over Bible translations. Sorry if that is disappointing, but I simply don't know enough to hold a conversation, let alone a debate.

My earlier point was perhaps not made very strongly. I was not so much appealing to popularity. I was not saying that because a large committee of professionals got together to produce the modern translations, they must be right, simply because of the sheer numbers. What I meant was that my interpretation of the OKJV and their direct translation from the Aramaic or Hebrew (on the issue of evil originating from or being sent by God) amounted to precisely the same thing. Now, either that bunch of professional theologians and I are so very biased that we could not help come to the same conclusion independently, or that we arrived at the truth independently. My argument was that God was helping both them and me to understand Him through our attempts to understand His messages in the Bible.

No... it's all good. Braurong can have this point.

You can only arm-wrestle an egg for so long.

:fluffle:

It's spelled Bruarong. Braurong looks funny.

So I'm an egg, eh? Interesting. I'm sure it's amusing, but I don't get the saying. Perhaps you could explain it to me. Is it an American colloquial?

Possibly, in many ways, the JWs beliefs are more literal than some mainstream Christians. I suppose there is so much variation in mainstream Christianity, it would be impossible to do such a contrast justice. However, I find it a bit strange that the JWs took the reference in Revelation about the 144,000 literally. In Rev 7, the scriptures say they were from the 12 tribes of Israel. Taking that literally means that they were to be Israelites. Most JWs probably aren't. Then in Rev 14 they are supposed to have never slept with a woman. Once again, I doubt that most JWs fall into that category. Of course, all this depends on literal interpretation. Not being a theologian, I'm actually not sure what the Apostle John was getting at with these passages.

Although I am not a JW, and don't go along with some of their beliefs, I certainly to not speak dismissively. I accept that there is truth in their beliefs, just like there is some truth in Islam. However, when they reject that Jesus was God, they are refusing to allow that God came to save them from their sin. If you think that means I despise them, I disagree. The Christian view is that every person is made in the image of God, and thus deserves my respect, regardless of what they believe. The demand for respect comes from their maker, not their beliefs.


You are right... the 144,000 are virgins, and are all men, and have never told untruths... AND they are of the tribes of Israel (although whether these are the ACTUAL tribes is debatable, since the tribe of Dan isn't on the list).

And, again, you are right... it is very unlikely that most Witnesses fulfill those requirements. But, that is because they are not expecting to BE among the 144,000... since the 144,000 is a separate group to the Kingdom of Heaven to which the faithful will be transported. Revelation clearly describes the Kingdom ON EARTH - and that is where the faithful will be... ONLY the 144,000 will be with Jesus elsewhere.


Or it could be that you prefer to use the KJV as it suits your attempts to confuse and demonstrate flaws in the scriptures, by hiding in the translations differences. It does indeed appear that way at times.

As far as scriptures goes, I personally see it as a contribution from both man and God. The messages are from God. The writings are from man. The messages are perfect, since they come from a perfect person. The writings can be flawed, since them come from flawed humans, and are translated by flawed humans. So long as the messages are not tampered with, they remain perfect, giving light to the soul.


No - I chose to use the KJV because it is pretty. When the KJV doesn't agree with the Hebrew, I question it. You can ask any of the 'regulars', if you wish.

Since God gave his scripture in Hebrew (and Greek and Aramaic), I don't believe it is possible to know what the scripture 'means' UNLESS you read it in the native tongue. By reading these 'pop' translations, you are getting a slang version of a translation of a translation.


Firstly, since I am not a theologian, I am going to decline your offer to go head to head over Bible translations. Sorry if that is disappointing, but I simply don't know enough to hold a conversation, let alone a debate.


Good policy. Don't get involved beyond your means... I agree this is sound.
It IS a little disappointing, because you could learn something... but I guess you value your 'comfort', and I gues I have no cause to agitate that.


My earlier point was perhaps not made very strongly. I was not so much appealing to popularity. I was not saying that because a large committee of professionals got together to produce the modern translations, they must be right, simply because of the sheer numbers. What I meant was that my interpretation of the OKJV and their direct translation from the Aramaic or Hebrew (on the issue of evil originating from or being sent by God) amounted to precisely the same thing. Now, either that bunch of professional theologians and I are so very biased that we could not help come to the same conclusion independently, or that we arrived at the truth independently. My argument was that God was helping both them and me to understand Him through our attempts to understand His messages in the Bible.

I see... so, JUST you and your allies were influenced by 'god', while I, and others that follow the original language (like the entire Jewish people?) are deluded?

I don't REALLY see how you can justify an approach like that, especially when the original language texts still exist... and they CERTAINLY don't agree with the English-language translations. But, I guess that's your choice...

Of course - by choosing a translation that ignores the Hebrew, you ARE saying that you prefer man's word to God's word.

It's spelled Bruarong. Braurong looks funny.

So I'm an egg, eh? Interesting. I'm sure it's amusing, but I don't get the saying. Perhaps you could explain it to me. Is it an American colloquial?

You know... I KNOW it's spelled Bruarong... and yet, looking back over my posts... I always seem to type it the other way...

No, you're not an egg. I don't know if THAT is an American colloquilism... I was just being my usual peculiar self. What I meant was that I'm involved in a confrontation where I just can't achieve any leverage... I can't 'get a grip'.

Have you ever tried to 'armwrestle an egg'? Conjure the image for a moment, and perhaps you'll see what I mean.

Have you ever tried to 'armwrestle an egg'? Conjure the image for a moment, and perhaps you'll see what I mean.

Anticipate a loss in the face of an egg? Nooooo....

You know... I KNOW it's spelled Bruarong... and yet, looking back over my posts... I always seem to type it the other way...

No, you're not an egg. I don't know if THAT is an American colloquilism... I was just being my usual peculiar self. What I meant was that I'm involved in a confrontation where I just can't achieve any leverage... I can't 'get a grip'.

Have you ever tried to 'armwrestle an egg'? Conjure the image for a moment, and perhaps you'll see what I mean.

Right, there was no offense taken anyway. Actually, it makes for a light comedy relief if anything. Yes, see what you mean with the egg. When someone just doesn't seem to get your point, there is little point in continuing with the conversation. I apologise for not getting your point. Perhaps I should read it again.....where was that post.....oh, maybe I'll leave it go too.

Right, there was no offense taken anyway. Actually, it makes for a light comedy relief if anything. Yes, see what you mean with the egg. When someone just doesn't seem to get your point, there is little point in continuing with the conversation. I apologise for not getting your point. Perhaps I should read it again.....where was that post.....oh, maybe I'll leave it go too.

Sometimes, it just doesn't seem that a given point is going anywhere, and you weigh it up... is this important to the flow of the debate? And sometimes, you decide you'll let it lie (although, of course, somethimes they just come back after you later, anyway).

The egg thing wasn't an insult... just my own unique approach to our langauge. :D

No... it's all good. Braurong can have this point.

You can only arm-wrestle an egg for so long.

:fluffle:
MMMM egg