NationStates Jolt Archive

You should let them know that the main text for jews is the torah, not the bible.

While we're at it, Adonai is also a common jewish name for jehovah. Jewish prayers, for example, generally start "Baruch ata adonai, blahblahblah" which is "Blessed is god, blahblahblah".

I wish I had more Hebrew language training. I think I am too old to start over.

The point being there is about 80% in common. Just ball parking here.

Does this give us the right or the cause to shoot each other, no.

You should let them know that the main text for jews is the torah, not the bible.

No, not quite. The Torah (which means "the Teachings") is the five books of Moses (exodus, genesis, leviticus, numbers, deuderonomy). They are the most important texts in Judaism but they are NOT the sum total.

There is also Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings"). The combination of the Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim is refered to as the Tanakh, which is just how you would pronounce the letters TNK written together, for Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim.

And Tanakh in Hebrew means...Bible. Jews call their bible...the bible. It is also refered to as "the Hebrew Bible" and "The Old Testament". Jews avoid both these terms because it would imply either that there's some OTHER actual Bible out there other than the Hebrew one, or that there's a valid NEW testament.

But despite popular opinion, the Torah is NOT the Jewish Bible. It's one PART of the Tanakh. Jews, in English, call their bible....the bible.

While we're at it, Adonai is also a common jewish name for jehovah. Jewish prayers, for example, generally start "Baruch ata adonai, blahblahblah" which is "Blessed is god, blahblahblah".

Again, not quite. Adonai is hebrew means "lord". Baruch ata adonai means "blessed is the lord. However it is jewish custom to, out of reverence to god, to not say, or write his name. The actual NAME OF GOD in hebrew would be pronounced "Yahweh". However, again, jewish custom states that you do not say, or write that word. Ergo they say Adonai (lord) or Hashem, which means, literally, "the name"

I see.,..

...even thoguh they repeatedly used the word Torah when preparing me for my bar mitzvah...

I see.,..

...even thoguh they repeatedly used the word Torah when preparing me for my bar mitzvah...

probably because you read out of the Torah, which is customary. The Torah is by faaaar the most important part of the Tanakh, but it's not the ONLY part.

probably because you read out of the Torah, which is customary. The Torah is by faaaar the most important part of the Tanakh, but it's not the ONLY part.

...it's just i don't rememebr the rabbi and cantor ever using the word "bible"...

...although we do have a book form then marked "tanakh"...

It seems to me if you want to critique the the Christian Bible then you have to ask people who were there.

So you ask "Did Jesus exist?"

Jews - Yes he did
Islam - Yes he did
Christianity - Yes he did

So you ask "Did Jesus die on the cross?"
Jews - Yes, he claimed he was the son of God so we had to put him down he was obviously insane
Islam - No he was brought up to Heaven just before the end?
Christianity - Yes he died on the cross

So you ask Islam what makes you think he was brought up to Heaven? Did you see a blinding flash of light - No
Did you Jesus disappear before your eyes? - No
Didn't they stick a spear through his side to make sure he was dead? - Yes but he wasn't there
Didn't they try to bury his body in the tomb? - Yes
Didn't they post a 24 hour guard to make sure nobody played around with it? - Yes, but he wasn't there
Jews say we somehow got past the guard without being seen and without breaking the seal and stole the body and disposed of it.

All his supporters were in hiding at the time. Who would have done this?
No answer

It seems to me if you want to critique the the Christian Bible then you have to ask people who were there.

So you ask "Did Jesus exist?"

Jews - Yes he did
Islam - Yes he did
Christianity - Yes he did

So you ask "Did Jesus die on the cross?"
Jews - Yes, he claimed he was the son of God so we had to put him down he was obviously insane
Islam - No he was brought up to Heaven just before the end?
Christianity - Yes he died on the cross

So you ask Islam what makes you think he was brought up to Heaven? Did you see a blinding flash of light - No
Did you Jesus disappear before your eyes? - No
Didn't they stick spear through his side to make sure he was dead? - Yes but he wasn't there
Didn't they try to bury his body in the tomb? - Yes
Didn't they post a 24 hour guard to make sure nobody played around with it? - Yes, but he wasn't there
Jews say we somehow got past the guard without being seen and without breaking the seal and stole the body and disposed of it.

All his supporter were in hiding at the time. Who would have done this?
No answer

what the fuck?

I would love to live in your mind for like...a day. I'd never need to do drugs again.

So either he is a crackpot lunatic or he was the Son of God. The choice is yours.

So either he is a crackpot lunatic or he was the Son of God. The choice is yours.

Or he didn't exist. Or he did exist in some fashion, but never made the claims he made, and those were added later.

Of the four I'm more inclined to believe the last, but if you're only going to give me one of the two, I suppose I'll go with...crackpot lunatic as the far more likely explanation.

Or he didn't exist. Or he did exist in some fashion, but never made the claims he made, and those were added later.

Of the four I'm more inclined to believe the last, but if you're only going to give me one of the two, I suppose I'll go with...crackpot lunatic as the far more likely explanation.

That is fair to say many other believe what you do.

That is fair to say many other believe what you do.

yes...I'm sure they do. We tend to call these people "not christians". There's like...4.5 billion of us.

What's your point?

No point just a statement. I will let you guys take this discussion where you want to take it.

Here TB, this site explains most of your misconceptions about evolution:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Top10MythsEvol.HTM

A pretty good article

http://www.y-jesus.com/jesuscomplex_1.php?gclid=COOwn8HDk5gCFQNvHgodWijKmw

Not really.

It says that "It was primarily Jesus’ outrageous claims that caused him to be viewed as a crackpot by both the Roman authorities and the Jewish hierarchy", which simply isn't true.

The Roman authorities have very little to say about Jesus - and what there is is hearsay. If they had any opinions, it is unlikely 'Rome' considered Jesus to be any different to any of the other 'messiahs' that came before AND after him.

The Jewish heirarchy wouldn't have viewed Jesus (if real) as a 'crackpot' - they'd have seen that he preached changes to Levitical Law - and that makes him a false prophet. Not a crackpot.

Well said. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be many cross over points.

Not true. We have several religious AND scientific people on this forum. They manage to reconcile those 'extremes' just fine - by finding some way to make peace with what they need 'evidence' for, and what they'll take on faith.

Hey Grave welcome back.

He claimed authority to make those changes. They wanted a sign and he flat out refused them many times. They did consider him a prophet but something more than that as well. They tried desperately to trip him up with scripture but could not do so.

I had a question for you a mile back. Re posting so you don't have to scroll back.

Okay. Excellent. So let me lay this on you before I forget. I prayed for wisdom because I am not skilled in these areas. Anyway the question came to me as I was riding the PATH, a short subway in NJ/NY.

Anyway the question is if evolution were the case wouldn't we be able to see Betta that had no labyrinth and then be able to fast forward 200 million years or whatever and see a Betta with a labyrinth? Here is the before here is the after.

Secondly what we humans see as evolution could it not also be the process of making the Betta we know today?


God never explained how he did it, the Bible is not a blueprint on how he did it. It is just an overview he left out a lot of the complicated stuff. Remember he was trying to make his case to shepherds and nomads. None of the had any skill in biology. Few of them knew anything about science at all. They may have had some skill in animal husbandry but that is it.

Just proof that he exists. Otherwise they would be able to. Donkeys stay with donkeys, horses with horses and you won't have a problem. Otherwise it is 2 step process.

Donkeys and horses are sufficiently closely related that they can mate, but not so closely related that this doesn't carry problems. Similarly - sheep and goats.

Once the genepools get too divergent, however, there is no longer even the potential for interbreeding. An example would be the post-miacid genepools: dogs, cats, bears - same ancestors, no longer close enough to intermix.

You mean like claiming Christ didn't exist?

You mean like claiming the Exodus never happened?

That we all just made him up as some sort worldwide conspiracy or repressing the people?

First - that's not 'wilful' anything, much less 'ignorance'.

There is no independent evidence of a biblical 'exodus'. Thus - if the result of research tells you that there probably wasn't an exodus, that's not ignorance... and it's certainly not 'wilful'.

Similarly - given how poor the evidence is for a historical 'Jesus', it's neither wilful nor ignorant to say he might well never have existed.

And, even if you conclude that he DID exist, actually reading the whole scripture makes it pretty clear he couldn't have been 'christ'.

In truth, there is Roman testimony for the existence of a "Jesus"; little is given beyond a name, and the evidence hardly supports the larger Christian conception of Jesus, but he did exist.

'In truth', you're wrong.

What is given in 'Roman testimony' is written MUCH later, by people recording things that transpired before the authors, themselves, were born. At best, it's hearsay.

There is no GOOD evidence that there was the 'Jesus' character spoken of in the Bible. (With or without his miraculous claims - there's not even good evidence that he existed).

Simply put:

Believe, Don't Believe that is your choice...

Not my choice.

I can't choose to believe or not believe something.

I had a question for you a mile back. Re posting so you don't have to scroll back.

Okay. Excellent. So let me lay this on you before I forget. I prayed for wisdom because I am not skilled in these areas. Anyway the question came to me as I was riding the PATH, a short subway in NJ/NY.

Anyway the question is if evolution were the case wouldn't we be able to see Betta that had no labyrinth and then be able to fast forward 200 million years or whatever and see a Betta with a labyrinth? Here is the before here is the after.

Secondly what we humans see as evolution could it not also be the process of making the Betta we know today?

I think the reason your "question" wasn't answered is because it's nonsensical gibberish. I can't even figure out what in blazes you're trying to say.

So either he is a crackpot lunatic or he was the Son of God. The choice is yours.

So - either Harry Potter is a crackpot lunatic, or the son of god... right?

Hey Grave welcome back.

He claimed authority to make those changes. They wanted a sign and he flat out refused them many times. They did consider him a prophet but something more than that as well. They tried desperately to trip him up with scripture but could not do so.

They didn't consider him a prophet.

The age of prophecy was over, centuries before 'Jesus' is even discussed.

Thus - either a new age of prophets had started (which wouldn't be according to what the covenant had promised), or Jesus would have to be a false prophet.

Given that he claimed he could change the levitical law, he was obviously a false prophet.

I think the reason your "question" wasn't answered is because it's nonsensical gibberish. I can't even figure out what in blazes you're trying to say.

I dont know. it looked to me that when TB last asked that it was answered pretty well, then TB moved on to mules.

It looks more like a drawn out way to try and argue ID than an actual question though.


Of course God cant be seen or tested for in any way so why should its involvement be assumed at all?

First we are discounting the memories of thousand of Jews. Not just 1, 1000s, 10000s but pretty much all of them. It was a mass delusional of epic proportions.

Easy Neo it is something we were discussing previously. By the way kudos for arguing so well. My hat is off.

Anyway the question is if evolution were the case wouldn't we be able to see Betta that had no labyrinth and then be able to fast forward 200 million years or whatever and see a Betta with a labyrinth? Here is the before here is the after.


Other fish related to Bettas... but without the degree of convolution of labyrinth. Remember, a labyrinth is basically just a swimbladder that's become a little... specialised.


Secondly what we humans see as evolution could it not also be the process of making the Betta we know today?


It is, surely?


God never explained how he did it, the Bible is not a blueprint on how he did it. It is just an overview he left out a lot of the complicated stuff.


Are you saying that evolution could be directed by an unseen hand?

Absolutely. Science doesn't claim there's no god, that's a common misunderstanding - science says 'this is how it looks like this works'.

Which is why people can be religious scientists. God made us - but evolution is HOW he made us.


Remember he was trying to make his case to shepherds and nomads. None of the had any skill in biology. Few of them knew anything about science at all.

They may have had some skill in animal husbandry but that is it.

On this, you ain't kidding. They believed you could change the markings on sheep by dipping stripey sticks in their water...

First we are discounting the memories of thousand of Jews. Not just 1, 1000s, 10000s but pretty much all of them. It was a mass delusional of epic proportions.


What are we discounting?

How many of the Old Testament era Jews actually saw any of the events described in scripture?

Answer - we really don't know. We just know that the scripture SAYS lots of people saw x, y, or z.

How many Jews witnessed/took part in Exodus? To be honest - we don't know if ANY did. There's no evidence there even WAS an exodus, and there's only the one account.

Just because some people NOW hold scripture to be a true history... doesn't mean it IS a true history.

First we are discounting the memories of thousand of Jews. Not just 1, 1000s, 10000s but pretty much all of them. It was a mass delusional of epic proportions.

Easy Neo it is something we were discussing previously. By the way kudos for arguing so well. My hat is off.

Quick question about the whole exodus thing in the bible. Where the jewish slaves just general slaves or was it the work force to build the pyramids?

They didn't consider him a prophet.

The age of prophecy was over, centuries before 'Jesus' is even discussed.

Thus - either a new age of prophets had started (which wouldn't be according to what the covenant had promised), or Jesus would have to be a false prophet.

Given that he claimed he could change the levitical law, he was obviously a false prophet.

True but they all knew the "one" was coming.


http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/prophecy-about-jesus.htm

The Book of Daniel was written 500 years before the birth of Jesus. In Chapter 9, Daniel predicts the very day that the Messiah would enter Jerusalem and present himself as king for the first time. The prophecy states that 69 weeks of years (69 x 7 = 483 years) would pass from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until the coming of the Messiah. 3 Since Daniel was written in Babylon during the Jewish captivity after the fall of Jerusalem, this prophecy was based on the Babylonian 360-day calendar. Thus, 483 years x 360 days = 173,880 days.

According to records found in the Shushan (Susa) Palace, and confirmed in Nehemiah 2:1, the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was issued by the Persian king, Artaxerxes Longimanus, on March 5, 444 BC. Remarkably, 173,880 days later (adjusting for leap years), on March 30, 33 AD, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (fulfilling the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9).4 Five days later, Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross just outside Jerusalem. (Actually, the form of his execution and even his last words were foretold hundreds of years earlier in Psalm 22.) Three days later, the New Testament accounts declare that Jesus rose from the dead on Easter Sunday, fulfilling numerous other prophecies of the long-awaited Messiah.

You can argue about Jesus' divinity, but he did exist for the following reasons.
1. Gospels were written 70. AD, early enough to be dismissed by those were around in Israel.
2. Gospels don't perfectly allign, kind of bad for a hoax.
3. Gospels use witness of women and other outcasts.
4. Romans mentioned him. Its doubtful whether people would have mentioned some guy on the hillbilly regions of their great empire unless he was a really big deal.
5. The letters were around 45 AD, extroardinarily close to the actual events.

True but they all knew the "one" was coming.


http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/prophecy-about-jesus.htm

The Book of Daniel was written 500 years before the birth of Jesus. In Chapter 9, Daniel predicts the very day that the Messiah would enter Jerusalem and present himself as king for the first time. The prophecy states that 69 weeks of years (69 x 7 = 483 years) would pass from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem until the coming of the Messiah. 3 Since Daniel was written in Babylon during the Jewish captivity after the fall of Jerusalem, this prophecy was based on the Babylonian 360-day calendar. Thus, 483 years x 360 days = 173,880 days.

According to records found in the Shushan (Susa) Palace, and confirmed in Nehemiah 2:1, the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was issued by the Persian king, Artaxerxes Longimanus, on March 5, 444 BC. Remarkably, 173,880 days later (adjusting for leap years), on March 30, 33 AD, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (fulfilling the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9).4 Five days later, Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross just outside Jerusalem. (Actually, the form of his execution and even his last words were foretold hundreds of years earlier in Psalm 22.) Three days later, the New Testament accounts declare that Jesus rose from the dead on Easter Sunday, fulfilling numerous other prophecies of the long-awaited Messiah.

careful. there are predictions people claim jesus did not fulfill.
http://www.evilbible.com/
1) Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.

2) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.

3) Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Yet there is no mention of this prophecy being fulfilled in the New Testament with the coming of Jesus, hence this is another Messiah prophecy not fulfilled.

You can argue about Jesus' divinity, but he did exist for the following reasons.
1. Gospels were written 70. AD, early enough to be dismissed by those were around in Israel.
2. Gospels don't perfectly allign, kind of bad for a hoax.
3. Gospels use witness of women and other outcasts.
4. Romans mentioned him. Its doubtful whether people would have mentioned some guy on the hillbilly regions of their great empire unless he was a really big deal.
5. The letters were around 45 AD, extroardinarily close to the actual events.

Extraordinarily well said. Thank you for adding to this discussion!

First we are discounting the memories of thousand of Jews. Not just 1, 1000s, 10000s but pretty much all of them. It was a mass delusional of epic proportions.

what thousands? Where are their writings? Where are their recollections? Where is all the evidence? How do you know what they saw? You know what a small handful of people SAID they saw, but that's about it.

If I said, here and now, that godzilla just attacked New York City, would you discounting the millions of people who "saw it" by claiming that no, he did not?

You can argue about Jesus' divinity, but he did exist for the following reasons.
1. Gospels were written 70. AD, early enough to be dismissed by those were around in Israel.
2. Gospels don't perfectly allign, kind of bad for a hoax.
3. Gospels use witness of women and other outcasts.
4. Romans mentioned him. Its doubtful whether people would have mentioned some guy on the hillbilly regions of their great empire unless he was a really big deal.
5. The letters were around 45 AD, extroardinarily close to the actual events.

without going into the rest, did you just use the fact that the gospels are not consistant as evidence that it was real?

careful. there are predictions people claim jesus did not fulfill.
http://www.evilbible.com/
1) Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.

2) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.

3) Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Yet there is no mention of this prophecy being fulfilled in the New Testament with the coming of Jesus, hence this is another Messiah prophecy not fulfilled.




Isaiah 7:16


For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.


Let's take in context

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes.
*************************************

I think that is enough to get my point across. Easier working backwards. They are coming back because of the census.

First part is pretty easy. We all know that story I think.

From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel

Christian belief holds that the Emmanuel is the Messiah foretold in the other prophecies of Isaiah. In Isaiah 8:8, Palestine is called the land of Emmanuel, though in other passage it is termed the land or the inheritance of God,[1] so that Emmanuel and God are identified. Again, in the Hebrew text of Isaiah 8:9-10, the Prophet predicts the futility of all the enemies' schemes against Palestine, because of Emmanuel. In 9:6-7, the characteristics of the child Emmanuel are so clearly described for Christians that they do not doubt his Messianic mission. The eleventh chapter pictures the Messianic blessings which the child Emmanuel will bring upon the earth. Moreover, St Matthew (1:23) expressly identifies the Emmanuel with Jesus the Messiah, and Christian tradition has constantly taught the same doctrine. A number of the Church Fathers, such as St Irenaeus, Lactantius, St Epiphanius, St John Chrysostom, and Theodoret, regarded the name "Emmanuel" not merely as a pledge of Divine assistance, but also as an expression of the mystery of the Incarnation by virtue of which the Messiah will be "God with us".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus


According to most scholarly analysis, the Yahwist source (J) provides the main narrative of Exodus, supplemented by the Elohist (E).[15] The priestly editors (c 400 BC) reworked the JE source and added substantial material, such as the description of the tabernacle in chapters 35-40.[15]

19th century biblical criticism concluded that the Torah was composed of four originally independent documents, known as the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist, and the Priestly source. Of these the Elohist is identified as uniquely responsible for the episode of the golden calf, and the Priestly source as uniquely responsible for the chiastic, and monotonous, instructions for creating the tabernacle, vestments, and ritual objects, and the account of their creation. The poetic Song of the sea, and the prose Covenant Code, both in Exodus, were identified as smaller independent works embedded in the main documents. In 1878 Julius Wellhausen, in his Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, argued that the Priestly source was the last to be composed, in the 6th century BC, and his formulation became the consensual view.

The southern Jahwist source promotes Aaron, the progenitor of the southern, Aaronite priesthood. Meanwhile, it portrays Moses in a less flattering light. The northern Elohist denigrates Aaron as instigating worship of the golden calf. It also includes the Covenant Code, incorporated from an earlier source.

Scholars disagree over whether the sources were written documents.[15] Documentary approaches such as Wellhausen's classic formulation see it as an act of redaction, in which an editor (usually seen as Ezra) took the four sources - a 9th century Yahwist, 8th century Elohist, and 6th century Priestly source (the Deuteronomist is not present in Exodus) - and combined them with minimal changes. Thus Richard Elliott Friedman's The Bible with Sources Revealed (2003) is a modern documentary hypothesis more or less identical with Wellhausen but accepting Yehezkel Kaufmann's dating of the Priestly source to the early 7th century. By contrast, John Van Seters and Rolf Rendtorff see the Torah as a process of progressive supplementation in which generations of authors added to and edited each other, although Van Seters sees the final author as a late, 5th century, Yahwist, Rendtorff as a Priestly school. R. N. Whybray, whose The Making of the Pentateuch (1987) was a seminal critique of the methodology and assumptions of the documentary hypothesis, has proposed that the creation of Exodus and the Torah was the action of a single author, working from a host of fragments. The only areas of agreement between these views is that the terms "Yahwist", "Priestly" and "Deuteronomist" do have some meaning in terms of identifiable and differentiable content and style, and that the final Torah emerged in the 5th century BC.

Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger (c. 62 - c.113 AD) was the Roman Governor of Bithynia (present-day northwestern Turkey). Around 111 or 112 AD, he wrote the following letter to Emperor Trajan of Rome asking for advice on how to deal with Christians.

It is a rule, Sir, which I inviolably observe, to refer myself to you in all my doubts; for who is more capable of guiding my uncertainty or informing my ignorance? Having never been present at any trials of the Christians, I am unacquainted with the method and limits to be observed either in examining or punishing them. Whether any difference is to be allowed between the youngest and the adult; whether repentance admits to a pardon, or if a man has been once a Christian it avails him nothing to recant; whether the mere profession of Christianity, albeit without crimes, or only the crimes associated therewith are punishable -- in all these points I am greatly doubtful.

In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have denounced to me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were Christians; if they confessed it I repeated the question twice again, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed. For whatever the nature of their creed might be, I could at least feel not doubt that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy deserved chastisement. There were others also possessed with the same infatuation, but being citizens of Rome, I directed them to be carried thither.

These accusations spread (as is usually the case) from the mere fact of the matter being investigated and several forms of the mischief came to light. A placard was put up, without any signature, accusing a large number of persons by name. Those who denied they were, or had ever been, Christians, who repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and offered adoration, with wine and frankincense, to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for that purpose, together with those of the gods, and who finally cursed Christ -- none of which acts, it is into performing -- these I thought it proper to discharge. Others who were named by that informer at first confessed themselves Christians, and then denied it; true, they had been of that persuasion but they had quitted it, some three years, others many years, and a few as much as twenty-five years ago. They all worshipped your statue and the images of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They affirmed, however, the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food -- but food of an ordinary and innocent kind. Even this practice, however, they had abandoned after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your orders, I had forbidden political associations. I judged it so much the more necessary to extract the real truth, with the assistance of torture, from two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses: but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition.

I therefore adjourned the proceedings, and betook myself at once to your counsel. For the matter seemed to me well worth referring to you, especially considering the numbers endangered. Persons of all ranks and ages, and of both sexes are, and will be, involved in the prosecution. For this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread through the villages and rural districts; it seems possible, however, to check and cure it. 1

This is quite a letter preserved from antiquity. I reproduced a great deal of it here, because it was so powerful for me in its entirety. "Pliny the Younger" speaks of Christianity spreading throughout the Roman Empire and he addresses the procedure for persecuting followers out of this "superstition." Pliny also mentions Christ by name three times as the center of Christianity and describes Christian practices, including the worship of Christ "as to a god."

True but they all knew the "one" was coming.


Who knew one what?


http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/prophecy-about-jesus.htm

The Book of Daniel was written 500 years before the birth of Jesus. In Chapter 9, Daniel predicts the very day that the Messiah would enter Jerusalem and present himself as king for the first time. The prophecy states that 69 weeks of years


No, it doesn't.

It says 70 weeks, which is less than a year and a half.

Considering that Daniel also predicted an end to the world within three and a half years, it's unlikely he predicted that Messiah would arrive AFTER that.


Jesus was crucified on a Roman cross just outside Jerusalem. (Actually, the form of his execution and even his last words were foretold hundreds of years earlier in Psalm 22.) Three days later, the New Testament accounts declare that Jesus rose from the dead on Easter Sunday, fulfilling numerous other prophecies of the long-awaited Messiah.

Those things are not prophecies of Messiah.

Those are things that Christians decided are prophecies of messiah - as they would - because those are the things he did.

Jesus failed to meet any of the actual Messianic prophecies.

You can argue about Jesus' divinity, but he did exist for the following reasons.
1. Gospels were written 70. AD, early enough to be dismissed by those were around in Israel.


As they were.


2. Gospels don't perfectly allign, kind of bad for a hoax.


Kind of bad for a real source, too.


3. Gospels use witness of women and other outcasts.


Which is very equal opportunities of them, but hardly evidence.


4. Romans mentioned him. Its doubtful whether people would have mentioned some guy on the hillbilly regions of their great empire unless he was a really big deal.


Romans didn't mention him.


5. The letters were around 45 AD, extroardinarily close to the actual events.

Which letters? Where are you getting your dating?

More importantly - where is the INDEPENDENT, contemporary evidence? Everything we have that COULD have been written by someone who lived during Jesus' alleged earthly ministry - was (apparently) written by members of the cult. There's no good reason to consider it reliable witness testimony.

Around 34 A.D., one year after the crucifixion of Jesus, Stephen was thrown out of Jerusalem and stoned to death. Approximately 2,000 Christians suffered martyrdom in Jerusalem during this period. About 10 years later, James, the son of Zebedee and the elder brother of John, was killed when Herod Agrippa arrived as governor of Judea. Agrippa detested the Christian sect of Jews, and many early disciples were martyred under his rule, including Timon and Parmenas. Around 54 A.D., Philip, a disciple from Bethsaida, in Galilee, suffered martyrdom at Heliopolis, in Phrygia. He was scourged, thrown into prison, and afterwards crucified. About six years later, Matthew, the tax-collector from Nazareth who wrote one of the Gospels, was preaching in Ethiopia when he suffered martyrdom by the sword. James, the brother of Jesus, administered the early church in Jerusalem and was the author of a biblical text by his name. At age 94, he was beat and stoned, and finally had his brains bashed out with a fuller's club.

Matthias was the apostle who filled the vacant place of Judas. He was stoned at Jerusalem and then beheaded. Andrew was the brother of Peter who preached throughout Asia. On his arrival at Edessa, he was arrested and crucified on a cross, the two ends of which were fixed transversely in the ground (this is where we get the term, St. Andrew's Cross). Mark was converted to Christianity by Peter, and then transcribed Peter's account of Jesus in his Gospel. Mark was dragged to pieces by the people of Alexandria in front of Serapis, their pagan idol. It appears Peter was condemned to death and crucified at Rome. Jerome holds that Peter was crucified upside down, at his own request, because he said he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord. Paul suffered in the first persecution under Nero. Paul's faith was so dramatic in the face of martyrdom, that the authorities removed him to a private place for execution by the sword.

In about 72 A.D., Jude, the brother of James who was commonly called Thaddeus, was crucified at Edessa. Bartholomew preached in several countries and translated the Gospel of Matthew into the language of India. He was cruelly beaten and then crucified by idolaters there. Thomas, called Didymus, preached in Parthia and India, where he was thrust through with a spear by a group of pagan priests. Luke was the author of the Gospel under his name. He traveled with Paul through various countries and is supposed to have been hanged on an olive tree by idolatrous priests in Greece. Barnabas, of Cyprus, was killed without many known facts in about 73 A.D. Simon, surnamed Zelotes, preached in Mauritania, Africa, and even in Britain, where he was crucified in about 74 A.D. John, the "beloved disciple," was the brother of James. From Ephesus he was ordered to Rome, where he was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil. He escaped by miracle, without injury. Domitian afterwards banished him to the Isle of Patmos, where John wrote the last book of the Bible, Revelation. He was the only apostle who escaped a violent death.

Christian persecution didn't slow the growth of the Christian faith during the first few centuries after Jesus. Even as its early leaders died horrible deaths, Christianity flourished throughout the Roman Empire. How can this historical record of martyrdom be viewed as anything but powerful evidence for the truth of the Christian faith - a faith grounded in historical events and eye-witness testimonies?

a faith grounded in historical events and eye-witness testimonies?

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Around 34 A.D., one year after the crucifixion of Jesus, Stephen was thrown out of Jerusalem and stoned to death. Approximately 2,000 Christians suffered martyrdom in Jerusalem during this period. About 10 years later, James, the son of Zebedee and the elder brother of John, was killed when Herod Agrippa arrived as governor of Judea. Agrippa detested the Christian sect of Jews, and many early disciples were martyred under his rule, including Timon and Parmenas. Around 54 A.D., Philip, a disciple from Bethsaida, in Galilee, suffered martyrdom at Heliopolis, in Phrygia. He was scourged, thrown into prison, and afterwards crucified. About six years later, Matthew, the tax-collector from Nazareth who wrote one of the Gospels, was preaching in Ethiopia when he suffered martyrdom by the sword. James, the brother of Jesus, administered the early church in Jerusalem and was the author of a biblical text by his name. At age 94, he was beat and stoned, and finally had his brains bashed out with a fuller's club.

Matthias was the apostle who filled the vacant place of Judas. He was stoned at Jerusalem and then beheaded. Andrew was the brother of Peter who preached throughout Asia. On his arrival at Edessa, he was arrested and crucified on a cross, the two ends of which were fixed transversely in the ground (this is where we get the term, St. Andrew's Cross). Mark was converted to Christianity by Peter, and then transcribed Peter's account of Jesus in his Gospel. Mark was dragged to pieces by the people of Alexandria in front of Serapis, their pagan idol. It appears Peter was condemned to death and crucified at Rome. Jerome holds that Peter was crucified upside down, at his own request, because he said he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord. Paul suffered in the first persecution under Nero. Paul's faith was so dramatic in the face of martyrdom, that the authorities removed him to a private place for execution by the sword.

In about 72 A.D., Jude, the brother of James who was commonly called Thaddeus, was crucified at Edessa. Bartholomew preached in several countries and translated the Gospel of Matthew into the language of India. He was cruelly beaten and then crucified by idolaters there. Thomas, called Didymus, preached in Parthia and India, where he was thrust through with a spear by a group of pagan priests. Luke was the author of the Gospel under his name. He traveled with Paul through various countries and is supposed to have been hanged on an olive tree by idolatrous priests in Greece. Barnabas, of Cyprus, was killed without many known facts in about 73 A.D. Simon, surnamed Zelotes, preached in Mauritania, Africa, and even in Britain, where he was crucified in about 74 A.D. John, the "beloved disciple," was the brother of James. From Ephesus he was ordered to Rome, where he was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil. He escaped by miracle, without injury. Domitian afterwards banished him to the Isle of Patmos, where John wrote the last book of the Bible, Revelation. He was the only apostle who escaped a violent death.

Christian persecution didn't slow the growth of the Christian faith during the first few centuries after Jesus. Even as its early leaders died horrible deaths, Christianity flourished throughout the Roman Empire. How can this historical record of martyrdom be viewed as anything but powerful evidence for the truth of the Christian faith - a faith grounded in historical events and eye-witness testimonies?

Thus proving that even in the roman times, they realized christianity was a fraud. Why are you refusing to accept the truth?

These ones did it for me who knows maybe lightning can strike twice.


What is Faith?

So, where am I with all this...? Where has this journey taken me, and how should it impact my life? I intellectually believe that certain things happened in history, but what does that really mean for my life today...?

What is belief? What is faith?

Although the Christian faith is not based purely on evidence, it is definitely supported by evidence. Faith is not about turning off the brain and merely relying on the heart, or squashing reason in favor of emotion. No, Christian faith is about seeking and knowing Jesus with all facets of the human character. It's not a "blind faith" as I once thought... It's a "calculated faith" based on a preponderance of the evidence. Well, I've collected the evidence, and I've put it on trial... After a number of months in the jury room, I have returned with my personal verdict... Jesus Christ is who he claims to be... the Son of God who came to this earth about 2,000 years ago to offer true and lasting hope for mankind.

OK, now what...? I intellectually believe, by a preponderance of the evidence, that God exists, that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is his Son... How does this affect me? What is faith, as far as it concerns me?

I love the metaphor of a chair... Find the chair closest to you. Look at it closely. Examine its design. Is it structurally sound? Is it sufficiently engineered? Will the materials chosen by the manufacturer support your weight?

Most likely, you picked a chair that you believe will support you. That's belief. You applied logic, knowledge and experience to make an informed intellectual decision.

Now sit in the chair... That's faith! At one point, intellectual assent only goes so far. True living requires that we put our beliefs into action. Intellectual belief without actionable faith is hollow and meaningless...

Have you ever heard about the guy who walked a tight rope across Niagra Falls? Many people watched him do it. To them he asked, "Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls?" They all replied, "Yes." They had already seen him do it.

Then he pushed a wheel barrow on a tight rope across Niagra Falls. When he completed the feat, he asked the onlookers, "Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls pushing a wheel barrow?" To that they replied unanimously, "Yes." Because they saw him do that too.

Finally, a buddy of the tight rope walker climbs into the wheel barrow and the tight rope walker pushes him across the Falls. Wow, what a daring feat! When they finished, the tight rope walker asked the crowd, "Do you believe I can walk a tight rope across the Falls pushing a wheel barrow with a person in it?" To that they exclaimed, "Yes!" For they were now believers in this guy's awesome abilities.

Then he looked at the crowd and asked, "Who's next?"

There you have it... Belief vs. Faith...!

Thus proving that even in the roman times, they realized christianity was a fraud. Why are you refusing to accept the truth?

No this is extra Biblical proof.

I have to go back North Again, sigh I wish I could stay and read. Kudos all of you for putting forward reasonable, informed arguments. Well done all! I realize it is a tough sell to some. I took me a long time to come to grips with it.

No this is extra Biblical proof.

No, it's extra proof that christianity is a scam.

OK, now what...? I intellectually believe, by a preponderance of the evidence, that God exists, that the Bible is true, and that Jesus is his Son...

And, this is where it all falls down.

The ONLY evidence of 'Jesus' as 'son of God' is the Bible.

If the bible is discounted (as it should be, if you are evaluating all the evidence on it's own merits)... there is NO evidence that 'Jesus' was even a real person.

So - the 'preponderance of the evidence'... is one book.

No, it's extra proof that christianity is a scam.

Threadwin.

I have to go back North Again, sigh I wish I could stay and read. Kudos all of you for putting forward reasonable, informed arguments. Well done all! I realize it is a tough sell to some. I took me a long time to come to grips with it.

Strange wording. What is a 'tough sell'?

Do you feel you are 'witnessing', here?

Or are you actually considering the arguments that you hear, also?

Tough sell is selling to a crowd who are diametrically opposed to your product or service. Selling cable internet to a telephone company.

I am considering the arguments put forward. Especially with regard to evolution, an open mind is key, mostly to understand the objection or criticism. There are many articles of faith which we Christians accepted and have not challenged for some time. Especially about whether or not Jesus was a real person and not just made up. How does one prove that they are real or worse were real?

On a separate issue I call this reduction. Reducing a set of beliefs to it core principles. Let's take Buddhism for example


The Four Noble Truths

1. Life means suffering.

To live means to suffer, because the human nature is not perfect and neither is the world we live in. During our lifetime, we inevitably have to endure physical suffering such as pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death; and we have to endure psychological suffering like sadness, fear, frustration, disappointment, and depression. Although there are different degrees of suffering and there are also positive experiences in life that we perceive as the opposite of suffering, such as ease, comfort and happiness, life in its totality is imperfect and incomplete, because our world is subject to impermanence. This means we are never able to keep permanently what we strive for, and just as happy moments pass by, we ourselves and our loved ones will pass away one day, too.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardor, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow. Objects of attachment also include the idea of a "self" which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call "self" is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

The cessation of suffering can be attained through nirodha. Nirodha means the unmaking of sensual craving and conceptual attachment. The third noble truth expresses the idea that suffering can be ended by attaining dispassion. Nirodha extinguishes all forms of clinging and attachment. This means that suffering can be overcome through human activity, simply by removing the cause of suffering. Attaining and perfecting dispassion is a process of many levels that ultimately results in the state of Nirvana. Nirvana means freedom from all worries, troubles, complexes, fabrications and ideas. Nirvana is not comprehensible for those who have not attained it.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

There is a path to the end of suffering - a gradual path of self-improvement, which is described more detailed in the Eightfold Path. It is the middle way between the two extremes of excessive self-indulgence (hedonism) and excessive self-mortification (asceticism); and it leads to the end of the cycle of rebirth. The latter quality discerns it from other paths which are merely "wandering on the wheel of becoming", because these do not have a final object. The path to the end of suffering can extend over many lifetimes, throughout which every individual rebirth is subject to karmic conditioning. Craving, ignorance, delusions, and its effects will disappear gradually, as progress is made on the path.


The Noble eightfold path


1. Right View

Right view is the beginning and the end of the path, it simply means to see and to understand things as they really are and to realise the Four Noble Truth. As such, right view is the cognitive aspect of wisdom. It means to see things through, to grasp the impermanent and imperfect nature of worldly objects and ideas, and to understand the law of karma and karmic conditioning. Right view is not necessarily an intellectual capacity, just as wisdom is not just a matter of intelligence. Instead, right view is attained, sustained, and enhanced through all capacities of mind. It begins with the intuitive insight that all beings are subject to suffering and it ends with complete understanding of the true nature of all things. Since our view of the world forms our thoughts and our actions, right view yields right thoughts and right actions.

2. Right Intention

While right view refers to the cognitive aspect of wisdom, right intention refers to the volitional aspect, i.e. the kind of mental energy that controls our actions. Right intention can be described best as commitment to ethical and mental self-improvement. Buddha distinguishes three types of right intentions: 1. the intention of renunciation, which means resistance to the pull of desire, 2. the intention of good will, meaning resistance to feelings of anger and aversion, and 3. the intention of harmlessness, meaning not to think or act cruelly, violently, or aggressively, and to develop compassion.

3. Right Speech

Right speech is the first principle of ethical conduct in the eightfold path. Ethical conduct is viewed as a guideline to moral discipline, which supports the other principles of the path. This aspect is not self-sufficient, however, essential, because mental purification can only be achieved through the cultivation of ethical conduct. The importance of speech in the context of Buddhist ethics is obvious: words can break or save lives, make enemies or friends, start war or create peace. Buddha explained right speech as follows: 1. to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully, 2. to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, 3. to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and 4. to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth. Positively phrased, this means to tell the truth, to speak friendly, warm, and gently and to talk only when necessary.

4. Right Action

The second ethical principle, right action, involves the body as natural means of expression, as it refers to deeds that involve bodily actions. Unwholesome actions lead to unsound states of mind, while wholesome actions lead to sound states of mind. Again, the principle is explained in terms of abstinence: right action means 1. to abstain from harming sentient beings, especially to abstain from taking life (including suicide) and doing harm intentionally or delinquently, 2. to abstain from taking what is not given, which includes stealing, robbery, fraud, deceitfulness, and dishonesty, and 3. to abstain from sexual misconduct. Positively formulated, right action means to act kindly and compassionately, to be honest, to respect the belongings of others, and to keep sexual relationships harmless to others. Further details regarding the concrete meaning of right action can be found in the Precepts.

5. Right Livelihood

Right livelihood means that one should earn one's living in a righteous way and that wealth should be gained legally and peacefully. The Buddha mentions four specific activities that harm other beings and that one should avoid for this reason: 1. dealing in weapons, 2. dealing in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), 3. working in meat production and butchery, and 4. selling intoxicants and poisons, such as alcohol and drugs. Furthermore any other occupation that would violate the principles of right speech and right action should be avoided.

6. Right Effort

Right effort can be seen as a prerequisite for the other principles of the path. Without effort, which is in itself an act of will, nothing can be achieved, whereas misguided effort distracts the mind from its task, and confusion will be the consequence. Mental energy is the force behind right effort; it can occur in either wholesome or unwholesome states. The same type of energy that fuels desire, envy, aggression, and violence can on the other side fuel self-discipline, honesty, benevolence, and kindness. Right effort is detailed in four types of endeavours that rank in ascending order of perfection: 1. to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states, 2. to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen, 3. to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen, and 4. to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen.

7. Right Mindfulness

Right mindfulness is the controlled and perfected faculty of cognition. It is the mental ability to see things as they are, with clear consciousness. Usually, the cognitive process begins with an impression induced by perception, or by a thought, but then it does not stay with the mere impression. Instead, we almost always conceptualize sense impressions and thoughts immediately. We interpret them and set them in relation to other thoughts and experiences, which naturally go beyond the facticity of the original impression. The mind then posits concepts, joins concepts into constructs, and weaves those constructs into complex interpretative schemes. All this happens only half consciously, and as a result we often see things obscured. Right mindfulness is anchored in clear perception and it penetrates impressions without getting carried away. Right mindfulness enables us to be aware of the process of conceptualization in a way that we actively observe and control the way our thoughts go. Buddha accounted for this as the four foundations of mindfulness: 1. contemplation of the body, 2. contemplation of feeling (repulsive, attractive, or neutral), 3. contemplation of the state of mind, and 4. contemplation of the phenomena.

8. Right Concentration

The eighth principle of the path, right concentration, refers to the development of a mental force that occurs in natural consciousness, although at a relatively low level of intensity, namely concentration. Concentration in this context is described as one-pointedness of mind, meaning a state where all mental faculties are unified and directed onto one particular object. Right concentration for the purpose of the eightfold path means wholesome concentration, i.e. concentration on wholesome thoughts and actions. The Buddhist method of choice to develop right concentration is through the practice of meditation. The meditating mind focuses on a selected object. It first directs itself onto it, then sustains concentration, and finally intensifies concentration step by step. Through this practice it becomes natural to apply elevated levels concentration also in everyday situations.

************

All of the above work quite nicely into Christianity. Number 5 in the eightfold noble path is optional.

There is a quote which I have memorized. It is not from the Christian tradition.

Let your Love flow outward through the universe to height and to its depth and to its broad extent. A limitless love without hatred or enmity. Then as you stand or walk, sit or lie down, strive for this with a one pointed mind. Your life will bring heaven to earth.


That is what we are going for people. maybe if we spend 1/4 of the time,effort, and resources on curing cancer that we currently do on shooting, killing, and basically causing misfortune to one another we would have cure for cancer by now. I have no proof of this just a belief.

If we could just get past all the who is wrong and who is right and focus on the core message we would all do better and we would all likely make it to heaven, Nirvana or what ever you call the afterlife.

And, this is where it all falls down.

The ONLY evidence of 'Jesus' as 'son of God' is the Bible.

If the bible is discounted (as it should be, if you are evaluating all the evidence on it's own merits)... there is NO evidence that 'Jesus' was even a real person.

So - the 'preponderance of the evidence'... is one book.

That is undeniable. I personally have a problem with the real person thingy. The rest is sound.

You have to ask yourself what would make them perpetuate a lie at the risk of their own lives if they knew it was all just made up or never happened.

Remember with the Pliny thing I ask you 3 time are you a Christian and remind them the punishment is death? They have to say yes 3 times. Many of the Christian said yes 3 times. They were just tired of life?

Tough sell is selling to a crowd who are diametrically opposed to your product or service. Selling cable internet to a telephone company.

I am considering the arguments put forward. Especially with regard to evolution, an open mind is key, mostly to understand the objection or criticism. There are many articles of faith which we Christians accepted and have not challenged for some time. Especially about whether or not Jesus was a real person and not just made up. How does one prove that they are real or worse were real?

I think the problem is - you're assuming that you 'know more', and can reveal to us something new. Now, I don't want to speak for everyone - there may well be people here that are open to witnessing... but quite a number of us WERE Christians, myself included.

The questions you ask, and the arguments you make - most of us have dealt with and/or are dealing with.

But, the real crux is... you perceive that as me (us) being diametrically opposed to the message. We're not. I'm not. I'd be a believer again if I could. If there was a real evidence... I'd be Christian quicker than you can blink. I'm not opposed to the message.... there's just nothing about it that is convincing. Worse - it's no different than a hundred other messages.

That is undeniable. I personally have a problem with the real person thingy. The rest is sound.

You can 'have a problem' with it, but it doesn't make the evidence any better.

One source isn't a very reliable number even when you're just talking about... what colour a car is... it's a very poor amount of evidence to have for claims at miracles.

You have to ask yourself what would make them perpetuate a lie at the risk of their own lives if they knew it was all just made up or never happened.

Remember with the Pliny thing I ask you 3 time are you a Christian and remind them the punishment is death? They have to say yes 3 times. Many of the Christian said yes 3 times. They were just tired of life?

Not every religious story can be true.

Muslims die for their faith.

Christians die for their faith.

Vikings die(d) for their faith.

Buddhists die for their faith.

Bahai die for their faith.

Falun Gong die for their faith.


A lot of people die for lies. Every day.

Yep. Well can't blame a guy for trying. It has been fun verbally fencing with you. You have sharp sword and much skill.

We have fought this fight as long, and as well as we know how. We have been defeated. For us as a Christian people, there is now but one course to pursue. We must accept the situation.” Robert Lee

Number 5 in the eightfold noble path is optional.

Wtf? No its not. Unless "Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" in the Ten Commandments is also optional.

Wtf? No its not. Unless "Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" in the Ten Commandments is also optional.

I don't how many times I have said this he never said he was a God or Messiah. Check it out for yourself, don't take my words, take his. He wasn't even sure there was an afterlife.

I don't how many times I have said this he never said he was a God or Messiah. Check it out for yourself, don't take my words, take his. He wasn't even sure there was an afterlife.

Wtf? Did you totally miss my point?

Part 5 of the eight fold path is about as "optional" as any of the ten commandments are. Better?

5. Right Livelihood

Right livelihood means that one should earn one's living in a righteous way and that wealth should be gained legally and peacefully. The Buddha mentions four specific activities that harm other beings and that one should avoid for this reason: 1. dealing in weapons, 2. dealing in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), 3. working in meat production and butchery, and 4. selling intoxicants and poisons, such as alcohol and drugs. Furthermore any other occupation that would violate the principles of right speech and right action should be avoided.


What I meant was part 5 is optional in Christian life. If you choose that path no one will argue. If you choose to make weapons for a living let say no one will criticize you.

5. Right Livelihood

Right livelihood means that one should earn one's living in a righteous way and that wealth should be gained legally and peacefully. The Buddha mentions four specific activities that harm other beings and that one should avoid for this reason: 1. dealing in weapons, 2. dealing in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), 3. working in meat production and butchery, and 4. selling intoxicants and poisons, such as alcohol and drugs. Furthermore any other occupation that would violate the principles of right speech and right action should be avoided.


What I meant was part 5 is optional in Christian life. If you choose that path no one will argue. If you choose to make weapons for a living let say no one wil criticize you.


I dont understand how that is "optional" for a Christian. Im pretty sure Jesus would not be down with drug dealing, peddling child pornography, or manufacturing and selling weapons to African Warlords to slaughter their people.

In fact, Jesus says a Christian should basically be dirt poor, giving all their money to charity and renounce their worldy possessions.

"Blessed are you poor, For yours is the kingdom of God…Woe to you who are rich, For you have received your consolation"; and,"Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."; and, "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys." (Luke 6:20, 24; Matt. 19:23-24; Luke 12:33)

Republicans and the religious right tend to ignore that part though. I wonder why?

"Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" that is the big one top on the big 10. So now we go back over what Buddha said and hopefully you find that he never said he was to be worshiped.

"Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" that is the big one top on the big 10. So now we go back over what Buddha said and hopefully you find that he never said he was to be worshiped.

I know this. Again, you are missing my point.

I assure you, I probably know more about Buddhism then you do. I seriously considered it as a spiritual path for a portion of my life.

You may remember the adverts on busses in the UK saying "There probably is no God" -apparently the people behind it are being accused of breaking the UK advertising code as according to Christian Voice there is plenty of evidence for God.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7818980.stm

"There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.

"But there is scant evidence on the other side, so I think the advertisers are really going to struggle to show their claim is not an exaggeration or inaccurate, as the ASA code puts it."

Yeah right


I think the ghost of Douglas Adams was behind all this...

I dont understand how that is "optional" for a Christian. Im pretty sure Jesus would not be down with drug dealing, peddling child pornography, or manufacturing and selling weapons to African Warlords to slaughter their people.

In fact, Jesus says a Christian should basically be dirt poor, giving all their money to charity and renounce their worldy possessions.

"Blessed are you poor, For yours is the kingdom of God…Woe to you who are rich, For you have received your consolation"; and,"Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."; and, "Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys." (Luke 6:20, 24; Matt. 19:23-24; Luke 12:33)

Republicans and the religious right tend to ignore that part though. I wonder why?

I agree with you totally. I believe both Buddha and Christ would be in agreement with you. If you take it is literal form Dealing weapons could be selling a gun at your local sporting good store. Dealing in intoxicants could be a wine store up the block. Raising animals for slaughter is exactly what farmers do everyday. Same goes for Butchery.

Im out. Its about 1 AM here, and I was up too early tonight. Be back tomorrow.

Yep. Well can't blame a guy for trying. It has been fun verbally fencing with you. You have sharp sword and much skill.

We have fought this fight as long, and as well as we know how. We have been defeated. For us as a Christian people, there is now but one course to pursue. We must accept the situation.” Robert Lee

I wouldn't dream of blaming you for trying. If by some chance your religion - of all the religions in the world - is the one that is right, it is your responsibility to try to help as many people as possible to that truth.

I don't mind that, so long as your own mind is as open as you'd like ours to be. Can't say fairier than that, right?

Im out. Its about 1 AM here, and I was up too early tonight. Be back tomorrow.

Peace, my friend. :)

I will keep searching for it but finding proof the Jesus is the Son Of God outside of the Bible is a really tough requirement.

If I proof he was real I disprove all the rest of Christianity. If I produce the body of Christ the whole basis for our religion falls down and there is no more point we can fold our tents and go home.

If I don't produce proof I can never persuade you to the truth. It is an unassailable position which led you to the "win". No amount of ramparts or siege craft will work in this case.

Here is a good hypo for those believers....What if by some strange reason there is actual proof that there is no god. That all religion has it all wrong. What then? What would you do?

I will try to keep an open mind as always.

I will try to keep an open mind as always.

If that is a respone to my post, then that is the right answer. :tongue:

Work at perfecting the cyborg. It is our only other hope.

Work at perfecting the cyborg. It is our only other hope.

LOL creating the robot jesus....i think if you attempted that you would just end up with another...

http://thevoidcomedy.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/bender.jpg

I will keep searching for it but finding proof the Jesus is the Son Of God outside of the Bible is a really tough requirement.


Indeed, it is. You can understand why many people are skeptical.

Even without the miracles and the claiming to fulfill the requirement of the Jewish messiah, and the whole 'son of god' thing (which - if true, by the way, would be disqualification from being messiah)... it's going to be hard to verify the existence of an actual, historical Jesus in any objective fashion.


If I proof he was real I disprove all the rest of Christianity. If I produce the body of Christ the whole basis for our religion falls down and there is no more point we can fold our tents and go home.

If I don't produce proof I can never persuade you to the truth. It is an unassailable position which led you to the "win". No amount of ramparts or siege craft will work in this case.

Well, you wouldn't have to present a body... and a body probably wouldn't be the evidence you might assume. Even if you FOUND a body... what's to say it is the body of 'messiah'... even if you could PROVE it was the body of 'Jesus'?

Better evidence would be an independent AND contemporary source talking about Jesus. Someone NOT directly affiliated with the nascent christian cult, but writing around the time the events are supposed to have transpired. Given the claims of the things 'Jesus' was supposed to be doing - this is actually pretty damning evidence AGAINST a literal reading of 'Jesus'... people being raised from the dead, the sick being cured, demons in pigs... a 30 year old Jewish guy that WASN'T married... this stuff should be turning up in independent sources (at least) across the scope of the Greek/Roman world.

Trouble is they did not have newspapers at the time. Everything was sort of dependent. Few could even read or write. It would like be an oral story at best. For a suggestion that Jesus existed we could look at the Koran it fairly remove from the biblical authors. Only one that I know claims he is the Messiah is the Bible.

Koran has the same root as the Bible / Torah but then they diverge and go separate ways.

You saw before in the article I posted. They were trying to silence all the apostles. They were systematically seeking them out and wiping them out. Almost gangster style. These were not hardened criminals they were ordinary respected men of their community. They ran into trouble with Paul he was a Roman citizen. You can't just assassinate a citizen of Rome. He had rights afford to him virtue of the fact that he was Roman. He was able to get the word out.

It could have all stopped there. You have to ask yourself what were they trying to cover up. This would be like Roswell of the Middle East. We had at least newspaper accounts as independent.

If you look at what Pliny the Younger said he wrote a report to Ceaser saying these guys are all "superstitious" but that is it. They pay their taxes, they seek to do good work. They meet during the early morning and sign songs. These are the people we are spending all this effort to silence. Under torture all he could find was they we extremely superstitious. Pretty cool stuff.

Remember I said it before:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Ephesians 6:12.

Sounds exactly how they would operate. You have to admit it was pretty ruthless, systematic and efficient.

On a separate issue I call this reduction. Reducing a set of beliefs to it core principles. Let's take Buddhism for example


The Four Noble Truths

1. Life means suffering.

To live means to suffer, because the human nature is not perfect and neither is the world we live in. During our lifetime, we inevitably have to endure physical suffering such as pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death; and we have to endure psychological suffering like sadness, fear, frustration, disappointment, and depression. Although there are different degrees of suffering and there are also positive experiences in life that we perceive as the opposite of suffering, such as ease, comfort and happiness, life in its totality is imperfect and incomplete, because our world is subject to impermanence. This means we are never able to keep permanently what we strive for, and just as happy moments pass by, we ourselves and our loved ones will pass away one day, too.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

The origin of suffering is attachment to transient things and the ignorance thereof. Transient things do not only include the physical objects that surround us, but also ideas, and -in a greater sense- all objects of our perception. Ignorance is the lack of understanding of how our mind is attached to impermanent things. The reasons for suffering are desire, passion, ardor, pursuit of wealth and prestige, striving for fame and popularity, or in short: craving and clinging. Because the objects of our attachment are transient, their loss is inevitable, thus suffering will necessarily follow. Objects of attachment also include the idea of a "self" which is a delusion, because there is no abiding self. What we call "self" is just an imagined entity, and we are merely a part of the ceaseless becoming of the universe.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

The cessation of suffering can be attained through nirodha. Nirodha means the unmaking of sensual craving and conceptual attachment. The third noble truth expresses the idea that suffering can be ended by attaining dispassion. Nirodha extinguishes all forms of clinging and attachment. This means that suffering can be overcome through human activity, simply by removing the cause of suffering. Attaining and perfecting dispassion is a process of many levels that ultimately results in the state of Nirvana. Nirvana means freedom from all worries, troubles, complexes, fabrications and ideas. Nirvana is not comprehensible for those who have not attained it.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

There is a path to the end of suffering - a gradual path of self-improvement, which is described more detailed in the Eightfold Path. It is the middle way between the two extremes of excessive self-indulgence (hedonism) and excessive self-mortification (asceticism); and it leads to the end of the cycle of rebirth. The latter quality discerns it from other paths which are merely "wandering on the wheel of becoming", because these do not have a final object. The path to the end of suffering can extend over many lifetimes, throughout which every individual rebirth is subject to karmic conditioning. Craving, ignorance, delusions, and its effects will disappear gradually, as progress is made on the path.


The Noble eightfold path


1. Right View

Right view is the beginning and the end of the path, it simply means to see and to understand things as they really are and to realise the Four Noble Truth. As such, right view is the cognitive aspect of wisdom. It means to see things through, to grasp the impermanent and imperfect nature of worldly objects and ideas, and to understand the law of karma and karmic conditioning. Right view is not necessarily an intellectual capacity, just as wisdom is not just a matter of intelligence. Instead, right view is attained, sustained, and enhanced through all capacities of mind. It begins with the intuitive insight that all beings are subject to suffering and it ends with complete understanding of the true nature of all things. Since our view of the world forms our thoughts and our actions, right view yields right thoughts and right actions.

2. Right Intention

While right view refers to the cognitive aspect of wisdom, right intention refers to the volitional aspect, i.e. the kind of mental energy that controls our actions. Right intention can be described best as commitment to ethical and mental self-improvement. Buddha distinguishes three types of right intentions: 1. the intention of renunciation, which means resistance to the pull of desire, 2. the intention of good will, meaning resistance to feelings of anger and aversion, and 3. the intention of harmlessness, meaning not to think or act cruelly, violently, or aggressively, and to develop compassion.

3. Right Speech

Right speech is the first principle of ethical conduct in the eightfold path. Ethical conduct is viewed as a guideline to moral discipline, which supports the other principles of the path. This aspect is not self-sufficient, however, essential, because mental purification can only be achieved through the cultivation of ethical conduct. The importance of speech in the context of Buddhist ethics is obvious: words can break or save lives, make enemies or friends, start war or create peace. Buddha explained right speech as follows: 1. to abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully, 2. to abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, 3. to abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and 4. to abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth. Positively phrased, this means to tell the truth, to speak friendly, warm, and gently and to talk only when necessary.

4. Right Action

The second ethical principle, right action, involves the body as natural means of expression, as it refers to deeds that involve bodily actions. Unwholesome actions lead to unsound states of mind, while wholesome actions lead to sound states of mind. Again, the principle is explained in terms of abstinence: right action means 1. to abstain from harming sentient beings, especially to abstain from taking life (including suicide) and doing harm intentionally or delinquently, 2. to abstain from taking what is not given, which includes stealing, robbery, fraud, deceitfulness, and dishonesty, and 3. to abstain from sexual misconduct. Positively formulated, right action means to act kindly and compassionately, to be honest, to respect the belongings of others, and to keep sexual relationships harmless to others. Further details regarding the concrete meaning of right action can be found in the Precepts.

5. Right Livelihood

Right livelihood means that one should earn one's living in a righteous way and that wealth should be gained legally and peacefully. The Buddha mentions four specific activities that harm other beings and that one should avoid for this reason: 1. dealing in weapons, 2. dealing in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), 3. working in meat production and butchery, and 4. selling intoxicants and poisons, such as alcohol and drugs. Furthermore any other occupation that would violate the principles of right speech and right action should be avoided.

6. Right Effort

Right effort can be seen as a prerequisite for the other principles of the path. Without effort, which is in itself an act of will, nothing can be achieved, whereas misguided effort distracts the mind from its task, and confusion will be the consequence. Mental energy is the force behind right effort; it can occur in either wholesome or unwholesome states. The same type of energy that fuels desire, envy, aggression, and violence can on the other side fuel self-discipline, honesty, benevolence, and kindness. Right effort is detailed in four types of endeavours that rank in ascending order of perfection: 1. to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states, 2. to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen, 3. to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen, and 4. to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen.

7. Right Mindfulness

Right mindfulness is the controlled and perfected faculty of cognition. It is the mental ability to see things as they are, with clear consciousness. Usually, the cognitive process begins with an impression induced by perception, or by a thought, but then it does not stay with the mere impression. Instead, we almost always conceptualize sense impressions and thoughts immediately. We interpret them and set them in relation to other thoughts and experiences, which naturally go beyond the facticity of the original impression. The mind then posits concepts, joins concepts into constructs, and weaves those constructs into complex interpretative schemes. All this happens only half consciously, and as a result we often see things obscured. Right mindfulness is anchored in clear perception and it penetrates impressions without getting carried away. Right mindfulness enables us to be aware of the process of conceptualization in a way that we actively observe and control the way our thoughts go. Buddha accounted for this as the four foundations of mindfulness: 1. contemplation of the body, 2. contemplation of feeling (repulsive, attractive, or neutral), 3. contemplation of the state of mind, and 4. contemplation of the phenomena.

8. Right Concentration

The eighth principle of the path, right concentration, refers to the development of a mental force that occurs in natural consciousness, although at a relatively low level of intensity, namely concentration. Concentration in this context is described as one-pointedness of mind, meaning a state where all mental faculties are unified and directed onto one particular object. Right concentration for the purpose of the eightfold path means wholesome concentration, i.e. concentration on wholesome thoughts and actions. The Buddhist method of choice to develop right concentration is through the practice of meditation. The meditating mind focuses on a selected object. It first directs itself onto it, then sustains concentration, and finally intensifies concentration step by step. Through this practice it becomes natural to apply elevated levels concentration also in everyday situations.

************

All of the above work quite nicely into Christianity. Number 5 in the eightfold noble path is optional.

There's hope for you yet?

Trouble is they did not have newspapers at the time. Everything was sort of dependent. Few could even read or write. It would like be an oral story at best. For a suggestion that Jesus existed we could look at the Koran it fairly remove from the biblical authors. Only one that I know claims he is the Messiah is the Bible.

Koran has the same root as the Bible / Torah but then they diverge and go separate ways.

While they didn't have 'newspapers' at the time, I'm sure you are aware that we are talking about a period that was almost a golden age for recording data.

The idea that few could read or write simply isn't true. You're talking about one of the nexus points of history - where Latin met Greek-influenced Hebrew. It's always a bad idea to assume that people in the past were somehow dumber than we are, now.

As for citing the Koran... you're now citing an evidence that was written six CENTURIES after the fact. But - you're touching on the heart of the problem... there's very little contemporary material, and even less independent material. And NO independent contemporary material.

It's always a bad idea to assume that people in the past were somehow dumber than we are, now.
Especially with the masochistic anachronistic fetish so many of us seem to indulge in.
At least there's a quote for it ...
http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Ecclesiastes+1%3A9

While they didn't have 'newspapers' at the time, I'm sure you are aware that we are talking about a period that was almost a golden age for recording data.

The idea that few could read or write simply isn't true. You're talking about one of the nexus points of history - where Latin met Greek-influenced Hebrew. It's always a bad idea to assume that people in the past were somehow dumber than we are, now.

As for citing the Koran... you're now citing an evidence that was written six CENTURIES after the fact. But - you're touching on the heart of the problem... there's very little contemporary material, and even less independent material. And NO independent contemporary material.


It would have likely been in Hebrew if we were lucky. Greeks were able to read and write. Roman were able to read and write. Hebrew is another story. Let me clarify I do not think they were stupid.

I can get a close as Moses but so far nothing about Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo%27s_Works

It would have likely been in Hebrew if we were lucky. Greeks were able to read and write. Roman were able to read and write. Hebrew is another story. Let me clarify I do not think they were stupid.

I can get a close as Moses but so far nothing about Christ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo%27s_Works

You think Philo is a close source on Moses?

By 'close'... you mean 'written maybe 1200 years after the events are supposed to have taken place'?

As for the alleged illiteracy of Jews... do you forget that even a humble carpenter's son is said to have written in the sand, and read from scrolls in the temple?

Jesus did not write a memoir or diary that we know of. There is whole period of his life where we essentially know nothing about.

Even in the Bible we see him as an infant and then we see him in his 30's ish

I guess the question becomes what would we use? What is so all encompassing that would chronicle the life times of Hebrews, besides the Bible.

There were no birth records like we have. No newspapers. There is plenty of material about Rome and Greece. We have hieroglyphics in Egypt. If there were anything we would have to know what to look for then we might find it. Assuming it has survived the 2000 years plus since the event happened.

You think Philo is a close source on Moses?

By 'close'... you mean 'written maybe 1200 years after the events are supposed to have taken place'?

As for the alleged illiteracy of Jews... do you forget that even a humble carpenter's son is said to have written in the sand, and read from scrolls in the temple?

With regard to Moses then yeah even longer time period even less recorded. We have to add that it was probably carried around in the desert for 40 years. It would have to survive countless wars, burnings cities to the ground, being taken into captivity in Babylon, the Roman conquest etc.

There is whole period of his life where we essentially know nothing about.
Depends on who ya talk to, really. Ask the Council of Nicea, for example, if the literature is spotty or selective for any particular reason.

Jesus did not write a memoir or diary that we know of. There is whole period of his life where we essentially know nothing about.

Even in the Bible we see him as an infant and then we see him in his 30's ish

I guess the question becomes what would we use? What is so all encompassing that would chronicle the life times of Hebrews, besides the Bible.

There were no birth records like we have. No newspapers. There is plenty of material about Rome and Greece. We have hieroglyphics in Egypt. If there were anything we would have to know what to look for then we might find it. Assuming it has survived the 2000 years plus since the event happened.

I'm sure you don't see it - but you just basically stated the principle that explains why 'religious archeology' is intellectually dishonest.

This 'pursuit' of evidence is corrupt. You don't go looking for evidence to support assumptions you've already made - you find the evidence, and you see what assumptions you can draw from it. It's further evidence of the fact that religious methodology is actually destructive to scientific endeavour.

....This would be like Roswell of the Middle East....

Yes, it probably was but not in the way you are thinking.

With regard to Moses then yeah even longer time period even less recorded.


Actually... not necessarily.

There are possible data points in Egyptian recorded histories that COULD correlate to the Biblical Exodus... but if they refer to the same events, then the Bible lies.

So - you pays your money and makes your choice - is there NO evidence, or is there evidence that CONTRADICTS?


We have to add that it was probably carried around in the desert for 40 years.


Or not. What with that whole '40 years' thing probably being metaphor, at best.


It would have to survive countless wars, burnings cities to the ground, being taken into captivity in Babylon, the Roman conquest etc.

No, not really.

There's a strong argument that the Pentatauch texts didn't even exist before Hebrew captivity in Babylon... and that the bulk of all the Torah stories are ripped off from Mesopotamian myth.

Depends on who ya talk to, really. Ask the Council of Nicea, for example, if the literature is spotty or selective for any particular reason.

Canonisation wasn't intending to make a 'comprehensive' account, just an 'approved' one. Yes?

Canonisation wasn't intending to make a 'comprehensive' account, just an 'approved' one. Yes?Exactamundo. Kinda explains the lacking comprehension for the literature, which leads to as many perspectives as there appears to be on this topic. :)

In science no one does an experiment and then 2000 years later analyzes the results it just doesn't happen. History is tough that way. I understand what you are asking for I am just not sure it even exists to look for it.

In science no one does an experiment and then 2000 years later analyzes the results it just doesn't happen. History is tough that way. I understand what you are asking for I am just not sure it even exists to look for it.

Actually - you'd be surprised just how much science is done that way. It happens because of that fundamental difference between religion and science:

Science - observe, theorise, test, refine.

Religion - start with the assumption that the 'theory' is right, look for things to 'observe' to validate it - ignore anything that doesn't help.

Not all of our science takes place in a laboratory - much of it takes place in the environment... and that's an 'experiment' that's been running for billions of years.

You say "I'm not sure it even exists to look for it...". And therein lies the rub. You're looking for evidence to allow you to claim observation for an already-approved 'theory'... and you consider the lack of evidence to be a weakness... but you'll still accept the theory as gospel.

Actually - you'd be surprised just how much science is done that way. It happens because of that fundamental difference between religion and science:

Science - observe, theorise, test, refine.

Religion - start with the assumption that the 'theory' is right, look for things to 'observe' to validate it - ignore anything that doesn't help.

Not all of our science takes place in a laboratory - much of it takes place in the environment... and that's an 'experiment' that's been running for billions of years.

You say "I'm not sure it even exists to look for it...". And therein lies the rub. You're looking for evidence to allow you to claim observation for an already-approved 'theory'... and you consider the lack of evidence to be a weakness... but you'll still accept the theory as gospel.

That is the definition of faith. We recite it every Sunday.

We believe in one God the Father the almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

Do need to know that it 9.8 Meters per seconds squared to know Gravity exists? You can feel gravity. It is all around you. When it is not there you can feel it as well.

That is the definition of faith. We recite it every Sunday.

We believe in one God the Father the almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen.


Ah. Catholic, then? Curious to see you embracing apocryphal texts, then...


Do need to know that it 9.8 Meters per seconds squared to know Gravity exists?


You can measure the acceleration due to 'gravity', that doesn't make gravity 'real'... that might not have been a good example for you to pick.


You can feel gravity. It is all around you. When it is not there you can feel it as well.

When it is not there you can feel it? When is gravity 'not there'... and how can you 'feel it' then?

Again - bad parallel - 'gravity' as a theory, is just assumptions that fit the data. 'Gravity' might turn out to be nothing like what we imagine - the earth might just suck.

Using that parallel - you can make your assertions about 'god'... but you could well be serving satan. That's the problem with quantities you can't measure, I guess.

I think the existence or non-existence of God is all in a person's head.

I have done alot of reading since we started talking about this. This came up which seems to make sense to me.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould

In his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion."[48] He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution"[48] and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."[48]

In his view, "Science and religion do not glower at each other...[but] interdigitate in patterns of complex fingering, and at every fractal scale of self-similarity."[48] He suggests, with examples, that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that it is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."[48]

Also in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences adopted a similar stance. Its publication Science and Creationism stated that "Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."[49]

I have done alot of reading since we started talking about this. This came up which seems to make sense to me.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould

In his book Rocks of Ages (1999), Gould put forward what he described as "a blessedly simple and entirely conventional resolution to ... the supposed conflict between science and religion."[48] He defines the term magisterium as "a domain where one form of teaching holds the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution"[48] and the NOMA principle is "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)."[48]

In his view, "Science and religion do not glower at each other...[but] interdigitate in patterns of complex fingering, and at every fractal scale of self-similarity."[48] He suggests, with examples, that "NOMA enjoys strong and fully explicit support, even from the primary cultural stereotypes of hard-line traditionalism" and that it is "a sound position of general consensus, established by long struggle among people of goodwill in both magisteria."[48]

Also in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences adopted a similar stance. Its publication Science and Creationism stated that "Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."[49]

Which is why science generally tries to avoid combining those realms - well, that and the fact that analysing 'religious' data is nonsensical, since it cannot be falsified.

If you want to point fingers of blame for trying to combine those realms, the Intelligent Design and the Creation Science charlatans are the problem.

Ah. Catholic, then? Curious to see you embracing apocryphal texts, then...



You can measure the acceleration due to 'gravity', that doesn't make gravity 'real'... that might not have been a good example for you to pick.



When it is not there you can feel it? When is gravity 'not there'... and how can you 'feel it' then?

Again - bad parallel - 'gravity' as a theory, is just assumptions that fit the data. 'Gravity' might turn out to be nothing like what we imagine - the earth might just suck.

Using that parallel - you can make your assertions about 'god'... but you could well be serving satan. That's the problem with quantities you can't measure, I guess.



Whatever it [Gravity] is it seems to follow rules.

Gravity tends to pull you toward itself.

Too much of it and you can't move, too little of it and you are floating

Also true with religion. Okay I was trying to be witty.

Actually I normally feel too much gravity. You can feel it sort of taking of in an airplane. You can feel it sort of riding a roller coaster. Occasionally during flight you get that falling feeling. I don't have to see it to believe it.


With regard to Satan. If you do absolutely nothing he wins. His stated aims run contrary to what God wants in almost all cases. He is really good at telling people what they want to hear. Have you ever read Screwtape Letters, one of my favorites. If Islam is right I likely am following him. Allah would have to be merciful on me.


If you at least try you get partial credit in Christianity. Buddhism works great on earth. Buddhism and Christianity could and be interwoven with little or no strife. I have shown this before. Judaism could and is interwoven into Christianity and Buddhism as well. If you chose to you could eat and live the way they do. The one problem would be Islam.


God has been there for me and has done me well. I know I would be surely worse off without him. There have been tough times in my life where I am unsure what the outcome would have been although i am positive it would have brought me to a negative place.

There are challenges in life. There are trials an tribulations but in the end I know everything is going to be alright. Being a Christian doesn't shield you from pain. Being a Christian won't make you rich.

What does Christianity do give you?

1. Unbridled Optimism

2. Peace

3. You are never alone. You will never be abandoned

4. Unflinching, never wavering support. Thick or thin, night or day, hot or cold, sickness or health, rain or shine

:D

What does Christianity do give you?

1. Unbridled Optimism

2. Peace

3. You are never alone. You will never be abandoned

4. Unflinching, never wavering support. Thick or thin, night or day, hot or cold, sickness or health, rain or shine

:D1. That might be for some Christians, but not all, surely.
2. Peace is not guaranteed by Christianity. Did you skip the history lesson on the Crusades?
3. "I'm not alone because my invisible friend is always with me." Yeah...no.
4. "My invisible friend-" Wait, didn't we do this already?

1. That might be for some Christians, but not all, surely.
2. Peace is not guaranteed by Christianity. Did you skip the history lesson on the Crusades?
3. "I'm not alone because my invisible friend is always with me." Yeah...no.
4. "My invisible friend-" Wait, didn't we do this already?

1. It should make them feel optimistic may require examination of your life
2. Peace, I meant inner peace. The other is good too. Crusades were not asked for by God. We humans did that.
3. Invisible to you. I can see him just fine. :D
4. yeah but ...


I forgot one

5. Invisible armor against those who would call you down.

1. It should make them feel optimistic may require examination of your life
2. Peace, I meant inner peace. The other is good too. Crusades were not asked for by God. We humans did that.
3. Invisible to you. I can see him just fine. :D
4. yeah but ...


I forgot one

5. Invisible armor against those who would call you down.1. My life? When did I become an example of Christianity at its best?
2. Like the humans "did" (wrote) the Bible? Good point.
3. Really now? if I were to claim that an invisible, omniscient being was my personal supporter, friend, and creator (That was not God.) what would I be accused of?
4. ...Right.
5. ...Same as four.

Whatever it [Gravity] is it seems to follow rules.

Gravity tends to pull you toward itself.


I guess theories aren't your strong point?


Too much of it and you can't move, too little of it and you are floating

Also true with religion. Okay I was trying to be witty.

Actually I normally feel too much gravity. You can feel it sort of taking of in an airplane.


Not gravity, no.


You can feel it sort of riding a roller coaster.


Again, not gravity.


Occasionally during flight you get that falling feeling. I don't have to see it to believe it.


And again, not gravity. You don't have to see it to believe it, and you are willing to make all kinds of claims in it's name that it wouldn't make itself. I wonder if that means anything.


With regard to Satan. If you do absolutely nothing he wins. His stated aims run contrary to what God wants in almost all cases.


No, they don't.

The Adversary is the highest angel in the heavenly court. His job is to be adverse to man, not to god. He's the prosecution when YOU are on trial.


If you at least try you get partial credit in Christianity.


Nope. Thinking sin is sin, and if you don't believe it all you burn. There is no partial credit in christianity.


What does Christianity do give you?

1. Unbridled Optimism


You say that like it's a good thing.


2. Peace


Hardly.


3. You are never alone. You will never be abandoned


You FEEL like you're never alone. Not the same thing.


4. Unflinching, never wavering support. Thick or thin, night or day, hot or cold, sickness or health, rain or shine


Yep. It's the daddy we all wanted but never had. Which is why it's so popular, and so comfortable, and so good at controlling people.

That doesn't mean it's based on anything true.

Also - I have to point out - god either is or isn't. Cost/benefit analysis can't make that decision for you - so it doesn't matter how many ticks you get in the benefit column.

I guess theories aren't your strong point?



Not gravity, no.



Again, not gravity.



And again, not gravity. You don't have to see it to believe it, and you are willing to make all kinds of claims in it's name that it wouldn't make itself. I wonder if that means anything.



No, they don't.

The Adversary is the highest angel in the heavenly court. His job is to be adverse to man, not to god. He's the prosecution when YOU are on trial.



Nope. Thinking sin is sin, and if you don't believe it all you burn. There is no partial credit in christianity.



You say that like it's a good thing.



Hardly.



You FEEL like you're never alone. Not the same thing.



Yep. It's the daddy we all wanted but never had. Which is why it's so popular, and so comfortable, and so good at controlling people.

That doesn't mean it's based on anything true.

Also - I have to point out - god either is or isn't. Cost/benefit analysis can't make that decision for you - so it doesn't matter how many ticks you get in the benefit column.

*********************************


First Satan is not an employee. He works against both humans and God. Satan plays the game as it were, you can't have a football game without an opponent. He didn't create the field or the players and yet he get some level of control over them. Picture one team who has an owner who has money up the ying yang. He can afford to buy you all of the material possession you want. So he recruits a lot like minded individuals and he sends them out saying find me some good players offer them anything they want to get them over to our side. Tell them anything they want to hear, stroke them, play to their ego, show them alternative types of houses they could have if they come over. Show them the money, the power the fame they will have. Show them the women which will be dripping off of them. They can do drugs, shoot steroids, why workout when pharmaceuticals are so much easier.

The other side plays by the rules that were set out by the team owner. They can't spend more than they spend for any one else on the team. There is a fixed rate at which they will be paid. All their needs will be met. They will have a car, a wife, a house, ample food and clothing but maybe not the Earth finest but pretty good.

*********************************


First Satan is not an employee. He works against both humans and God. Satan plays the game as it were, you can't have a football game without an opponent. He didn't create the field or the players and yet he get some level of control over them. Picture one team who has an owner who has money up the ying yang. He can afford to buy you all of the material possession you want. So he recruits a lot like minded individuals and he sends them out saying find me some good players offer them anything they want to get them over to our side. Tell them anything they want to hear, stroke them, play to their ego, show them alternative types of houses they could have if they come over. Show them the money, the power the fame they will have. Show them the women which will be dripping off of them. They can do drugs, shoot steroids, why workout when pharmaceuticals are so much easier.

The other side plays by the rules that were set out by the team owner. They can't spend more than they spend for any one else on the team. There is a fixed rate at which they will be paid. All their needs will be met. They will have a car, a wife, a house, ample food and clothing but maybe not the Earth finest but pretty good.

Way to ignore all the important points. :rolleyes:

I think it is actually my job that allows me to see. I work in computers. I work with things I can not touch, feel, smell, taste everyday.

You ask me what is an Object in this case I mean the programming definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming
Object
A pattern (exemplar) of a class. The class of Dog defines all possible dogs by listing the characteristics and behaviors they can have; the object Lassie is one particular dog, with particular versions of the characteristics. A Dog has fur; Lassie has brown-and-white fur.
***********************
I have no problem with this. You can touch a Dog but not the Object. I can show you the code, You then hit me with I need an independent source.

I say it is written in C++ and is compiled into a language the computer understands, machine language. In the end that is where all languages go. You say but there are many different computer languages. I say yes there are but they all lead you to the same place, machine language. Some may need interpreting, some you need to compile and link, some just compile. In the end you get a working program.

I can take you to the file server it resides on. I can say the Object is in there. You say no that is a computer. I say okay fair enough but it is in there. You say show me. I ask how would I show you? You ask how do you know? I say where else would it be it is a computer program it needs to be in a computer.


In some cases you need to know machine language and since nobody on this side of the veil can program in machine language we have a problem.

Way to ignore all the important points. :rolleyes:


I know you can't prove gravity but you can kind of feel it. Just because it is a theory does it make it any less real?

I know you can't prove gravity but you can kind of feel it.

Of course Gravity can't be proven

Science!=Maths

To keep the anology going. You can say there are a lot bad progammers. I would say yes there are alot of bad ones but there are some really good ones as well. You can C++ is used to make viruses. I would say yes it could be used to make a virus, it can also be used to make really good programs. You say there are a lot of bad programmers out there. I would say yes there are there are some programs that don't perform as designed, there are programs that are designed well but are coded poorly, there are programs that due to unforeseen circumstances behave unexpectedly. If you stick to the methodology and use care in programming you will normally end up with a pretty good program. There may be bugs but the program as whole performs well. Now it has come down to crticizing the documentation. The designer knows we need work in that department but there was no time, no budget, no desire to do so the documentation suffered. It is also a legacy program written in an obscure language and yet it performs well today on some of the finest hardware around. Some computers have even been designed to optimized this coding.

Whatever it [Gravity] is it seems to follow rules.

Gravity tends to pull you toward itself.

Too much of it and you can't move, too little of it and you are floating

Also true with religion. Okay I was trying to be witty.

Actually I normally feel too much gravity. You can feel it sort of taking of in an airplane. You can feel it sort of riding a roller coaster. Occasionally during flight you get that falling feeling. I don't have to see it to believe it.


With regard to Satan. If you do absolutely nothing he wins. His stated aims run contrary to what God wants in almost all cases. He is really good at telling people what they want to hear. Have you ever read Screwtape Letters, one of my favorites. If Islam is right I likely am following him. Allah would have to be merciful on me.


If you at least try you get partial credit in Christianity. Buddhism works great on earth. Buddhism and Christianity could and be interwoven with little or no strife. I have shown this before. Judaism could and is interwoven into Christianity and Buddhism as well. If you chose to you could eat and live the way they do. The one problem would be Islam.


God has been there for me and has done me well. I know I would be surely worse off without him. There have been tough times in my life where I am unsure what the outcome would have been although i am positive it would have brought me to a negative place.

There are challenges in life. There are trials an tribulations but in the end I know everything is going to be alright. Being a Christian doesn't shield you from pain. Being a Christian won't make you rich.

What does Christianity do give you?

1. Unbridled Optimism

2. Peace

3. You are never alone. You will never be abandoned

4. Unflinching, never wavering support. Thick or thin, night or day, hot or cold, sickness or health, rain or shine

:D

5. 25-to-life. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Charles_Kopp)

6. Execution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jennings_Hill)

5. 25-to-life. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Charles_Kopp)

6. Execution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Jennings_Hill)

Both those are extremely sad. The program was designed well but had a few major bug which later cause of the whole program failing. The right idea but the wrong execution.

I will see your 2 and raise you 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Dunant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Nightingale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

Evidence for God (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwRISkyV_B8)

Both those are extremely sad. The program was designed well but had a few major bug which later cause of the whole program failing. The right idea but the wrong execution.

I will see your 2 and raise you 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Dunant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Nightingale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

It's true, there are some religious people that are quite good. But at the same time, I'm afraid I have to see your 2 and raise you by a huge number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism) :(

It's true, there are some religious people that are quite good. But at the same time, I'm afraid I have to see your 2 and raise you by a huge number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism) :(

Ouch yeah I suppose there are few.

First Satan is not an employee. He works against both humans and God.


No, he doesn't. He works against man, because that is his job. It's right there in Job.


Satan plays the game as it were, you can't have a football game without an opponent. He didn't create the field or the players and yet he get some level of control over them. Picture one team who has an owner who has money up the ying yang. He can afford to buy you all of the material possession you want. So he recruits a lot like minded individuals and he sends them out saying find me some good players offer them anything they want to get them over to our side. Tell them anything they want to hear, stroke them, play to their ego, show them alternative types of houses they could have if they come over. Show them the money, the power the fame they will have. Show them the women which will be dripping off of them. They can do drugs, shoot steroids, why workout when pharmaceuticals are so much easier.

The other side plays by the rules that were set out by the team owner. They can't spend more than they spend for any one else on the team. There is a fixed rate at which they will be paid. All their needs will be met. They will have a car, a wife, a house, ample food and clothing but maybe not the Earth finest but pretty good.

Cute, but bullshit, I'm afraid. There are no 'sides' - there is god, and there is his flawed creation... all of which does as he intends it will. Satan is not an 'enemy' he's a pawn, just like you, or I.


It's bad enough that the writers of the latter parts of the Tanakh paid little attention to the core of the earlier parts - and created a post-Egyptian polytheism. It's bad enough that the writers of the new testament took post-Hellenic Elysian mythology and combined it with the Hebrew traditions. It's even worse that they allowed other Mesopotamian duality to rewrite their monotheism into a fully functioning pantheon.

What is worst, is the way that post-Christian literature (everything from Paradise Lost to the Catholic Traditions) has created a sub-class of religious literature that is read as though it WERE scripture.

HaSatan was originally written as a similar entity to Maat, for example... someone that serves the purpose of assessing the good in the believer... maintaining truth and order. I have no real interest in what millenia of revisionists choose to add.

Evidence for God (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwRISkyV_B8)

That has to be the most persuasive evidence for God that I've ever seen.

"You're gonna spend $20 every month on paper towels anyway..."
Who could argue with that? Pure evangelistic gold.

No, he doesn't. He works against man, because that is his job. It's right there in Job.



Cute, but bullshit, I'm afraid. There are no 'sides' - there is god, and there is his flawed creation... all of which does as he intends it will. Satan is not an 'enemy' he's a pawn, just like you, or I.


It's bad enough that the writers of the latter parts of the Tanakh paid little attention to the core of the earlier parts - and created a post-Egyptian polytheism. It's bad enough that the writers of the new testament took post-Hellenic Elysian mythology and combined it with the Hebrew traditions. It's even worse that they allowed other Mesopotamian duality to rewrite their monotheism into a fully functioning pantheon.

What is worst, is the way that post-Christian literature (everything from Paradise Lost to the Catholic Traditions) has created a sub-class of religious literature that is read as though it WERE scripture.

HaSatan was originally written as a similar entity to Maat, for example... someone that serves the purpose of assessing the good in the believer... maintaining truth and order. I have no real interest in what millenia of revisionists choose to add.

I do think he is skilled at what he does but I am not sure that is the same thing. I don't understand how that would work you either work for the same side or you don't. The bible seems to think he is on the other side. As for all the other ideas that may have crept in. I have heard that time and again but it doesn't hold to much water for me.

"How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! 13"But you said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. 14‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’" (Isaiah 14:12-14).

"And another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems.4And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven, and threw them to the earth . . . " (Rev. 12:3-4).


Great imagery.

Once again, bible quotes are not suitable as proof because it's false.

(it also fails for being circular logic)

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing?
Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing?
Then why call Him God?"
-Epicurus

No, I do believe in a higher being, just presenting a little bit that not many people tread.

Here is another one of my favorites. You can almost feel the loss.

Here is another one of my favorites. You can almost feel the loss.

Who is, supposedly, the most beautiful of all His creations. Apparently, to gaze upon him, a person would go blind from the sheer magnificence.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing?
Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing?
Then why call Him God?"
-Epicurus

No, I do believe in a higher being, just presenting a little bit that not many people tread.

He is willing and able but he leaves it to us to decide - Free Will

True, but you can eliminate evil without interfering with Free Will.

Once again, bible quotes are not suitable as proof because it's false.

(it also fails for being circular logic)

We are just exploring interesting facets of religion.

With absolute proof there is no need for faith and some would say free will suffers.

We are just exploring interesting facets of religion.

With absolute proof there is no need for faith and some would say free will suffers.

Faith is defined as an idea that one follows with no factual basis...

True, but you can eliminate evil without interfering with Free Will.

Please develop the thought further. How can you provide a choice and yet eliminate one of the choices?

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Please develop the thought further. How can you provide a choice and yet eliminate one of the choices?

Okay, say something happened that eliminated Hitler prior to his final solution. millions would be saved, but there would still be temptation to do bad things, but not necessarily evil. The commandments and sins are based on things that are bad, not just evil. Murder is evil. Rape is evil. Theft is bad. Cheating on a wife is bad, etc, etc...

To me number 4 fits best for the definition of faith.

We are just exploring interesting facets of religion.

With absolute proof there is no need for faith and some would say free will suffers.

I know, but you really have to do better than circular logic...

Please develop the thought further. How can you provide a choice and yet eliminate one of the choices?

How about good vs neutrality? Then we get a choice and even the worst result is still acceptable.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

6, but it still is a belief without factual basis.

He is willing and able but he leaves it to us to decide - Free Will

Not really, the choice is to give yourself over to God wholeheartedly or go to hell.

That's not really a free choice is it?

Beyond that, if you accept what we've discovered about the universe then you're saying that this God formed a plan 15 billion years ago, let it cook and stew until a small planet in the outer regions of the universe formed 4.5 billion years ago, experimented with dinosaurs for a while, decided in favour of mammals and strained out a form of monkey to become self-aware, selected one small tribe in a small region of the world, he then sent down his son 2, 000 years ago and all this is rather irrelevant since he's going to end the world anyway, saving just 144, 000 souls out of the millions who have lived.

The only purpose of all this is that we might know how much he loves us, devote our lives to Him otherwise we're banished to the fiery pits of hell?

Free will my ass, I never signed that contract.

Okay, say something happened that eliminated Hitler prior to his final solution. millions would be saved, but there would still be temptation to do bad things, but not necessarily evil. The commandments and sins are based on things that are bad, not just evil. Murder is evil. Rape is evil. Theft is bad. Cheating on a wife is bad, etc, etc...

That would give him no opportunity to repent. Everyone needs this else we all would be in big trouble. You can eliminate the evil by eliminating the person. So just as you were about to shoot someone the bullet falls to the ground and the police show up. Unless you are Neo, that would be an unnatural act and would eliminate faith for those individuals.

That would give him no opportunity to repent. Everyone needs this else we all would be in big trouble. You can eliminate the evil by eliminating the person. So just as you were about to shoot someone the bullet falls to the ground and the police show up. Unless you are Neo, that would be an unnatural act and would eliminate faith for those individuals.

And yet omniscience would tell you that no matter what, certain people will not repent...

Out of curiosity, suppose that someone (lets call him Bob) is a good person, donates millions of dollars to charity, is given multiple rewards for helping the poor and needy, but is strongly atheist from birth until death. Where will he go in the afterlife?

So much of life is about choice. That homeless guy you walk by on the way to or from work. You make a choice either I can look the other way or I can give him a few dollars. That person having a rough time at the office you have choice say it is not my problem and walk away or you can ask what can I do to help you?

Out of curiosity, suppose that someone (lets call him Bob) is a good person, donates millions of dollars to charity, is given multiple rewards for helping the poor and needy, but is strongly atheist from birth until death. Where will he go in the afterlife?

I don't have the power to judge Bob. It sounds like he will have a lot of explaining to do.

Out of curiosity, suppose that someone (lets call him Bob) is a good person, donates millions of dollars to charity, is given multiple rewards for helping the poor and needy, but is strongly atheist from birth until death. Where will he go in the afterlife?Limbo, the first ring of hell, where you would spend eternity wandering around and debating and learning with the likes of Pluto and Aristotle...

At least according to Dante, anyways...

I don't have the power to judge Bob. It sounds like he will have a lot of explaining to do.

...and that's why christianity is fatally flawed. He's been good all his life, and that's what matters.

What would you do with Bob if you were in God's place. If you had that power just for Bob's case? Was Bob an otherwise exemplary human, a pillar of the community? We heard he gave a million dollars. Did he lie, cheat on his wife?

...and that's why christianity is fatally flawed. He's been good all his life, and that's what matters.

Most religions are fatally flawed this way. "You don't believe in me, well you're going to a bad place when you die." Most of the demons in the Bible are the competing religions of Judaism, named so to keep their followers from straying from the tribe...

That has do with Sin and pride. If you said to me hey look at that group of sheep over there. I look out the window it is a beautiful summer day the bird are singing and the grass is emerald green. I would say man those sheep are pretty white. Then we walk away and a freak snow storm covers everything. Then you look back at the sheep and they are no so white as before.

We are talking about a being that is incapable of sin. Sin gets under his skin it irritates him greatly.

That has do with Sin and pride. If you said to me hey look at that group of sheep over there. I look out the window it is a beautiful summer day the bird are singing and the grass is emerald green. I would say man those sheep are pretty white. Then we walk away and a freak snow storm covers everything. Then you look back at the sheep and they are no so white as before.

We are talking about a being that is incapable of sin. Sin gets under his skin it irritates him greatly.

But if he's all forgiving, then if someone had a few discrepancies but led an otherwise good life, it shouldn't matter...

He gave 2 main rules to follow and that is it. Love God and Love your neighbor. The rules are pretty clear. They are the same for all.

That has do with Sin and pride. If you said to me hey look at that group of sheep over there. I look out the window it is a beautiful summer day the bird are singing and the grass is emerald green. I would say man those sheep are pretty white. Then we walk away and a freak snow storm covers everything. Then you look back at the sheep and they are no so white as before.

We are talking about a being that is incapable of sin. Sin gets under his skin it irritates him greatly.

Clearly you're not talking about Jehovah, who, even in YOUR BIBLE, violated half the commandments and commited ALL of the seven deadly sins.

But if he's all forgiving, then if someone had a few discrepancies but led an otherwise good life, it shouldn't matter...

he is all forgiving. It requires 2 things. 1. You need to believe in him and 2. You have to ask for it.

Clearly you're not talking about Jehovah, who, even in YOUR BIBLE, violated half the commandments and commited ALL of the seven deadly sins.

To screw someone else's wife and have the husband be grateful for it, that was pretty cool, I have to give kudos to God for that.

EDIT: Although perhaps the kudos go to Mary for convincing Joseph that's what happened.

He gave 2 main rules to follow and that is it. Love God and Love your neighbor. The rules are pretty clear. They are the same for all.

Yes, but if you love a different idea of god but still love your neighbor, you are cast to hell?

Clearly you're not talking about Jehovah, who, even in YOUR BIBLE, violated half the commandments and commited ALL of the seven deadly sins.

A few months ago a group of Jews put God on trial for violating his promised protection of the chosen people and he was found guilty, it was a television special, try looking that up...

Please tell me how

1. Pride 2. Gluttony 3. Sloth 4. Lust 5. Wrath 6. Greed 7. Envy

To screw someone else's wife and have the husband be grateful for it, that was pretty cool, I have to give kudos to God for that.

EDIT: Although perhaps the kudos go to Mary for convincing Joseph that's what happened.

Out of curiosity, why didn't they follow stone jehovah to death? Deuteronomy 22:22-24 demands it.

Please tell me how

1. Pride 2. Gluttony 3. Sloth 4. Lust 5. Wrath 6. Greed 7. Envy

worshipping none other than he

demanding many many sacrifices over the years

abandoning the Chosen People for thousands of years

give me some time on lust

every genocide he committed

demanding a portion of all person's income

the golden calf

I need some sleep but feel free to post I will read it tomorrow and respond.

Yes, but if you love a different idea of god but still love your neighbor, you are cast to hell?Well, loving your neighbor obviously doesn't include a few groups of people.
Or even, most other people.

Please tell me how

1. Pride 2. Gluttony 3. Sloth 4. Lust 5. Wrath 6. Greed 7. EnvyOh, another one who thinks that watching morgan-freeman-movies makes one a theology scholar....

Well, loving your neighbor obviously doesn't include a few groups of people.
Or even, most other people.

That's what I'm saying, that person still loving and respecting all humans, take Gandhi for example.

Please tell me how

1. Pride 2. Gluttony 3. Sloth 4. Lust 5. Wrath 6. Greed 7. Envy

Pride: "I am an omnipotent omniscient god who can do anything"

Gluttony: "You shall slaughter and burn animals that could feed the hungry because I enjoy innocent things dying"

Sloth: "Yeah, I could slay (insert highly evil dictator) before he could slaughter many people, but I'd rather watch Heavenly Idol."

Lust: "Oh snap, I'm a virgin deity. I think I'll bang a woman and not care if she's married."

Wrath: Do I *really* have to link to the 214872568 times in the bible that jehovah gets mad and kills a few thousand?

Greed: "So what if I already have a bunch of followers? I want MORE, so I'll have my people convert others by force!"

Envy: "Uh oh -- it turns out that there are deities that AREN'T total douchebags. I'll drag their names through the mud and claim that they're evil!"

Pride: "I am an omnipotent omniscient god who can do anything"

Gluttony: "You shall slaughter and burn animals that could feed the hungry because I enjoy innocent things dying"

Sloth: "Yeah, I could slay (insert highly evil dictator) before he could slaughter many people, but I'd rather watch Heavenly Idol."

Lust: "Oh snap, I'm a virgin deity. I think I'll bang a woman and not care if she's married."

Wrath: Do I *really* have to link to the 214872568 times in the bible that jehovah gets mad and kills a few thousand?

Greed: "So what if I already have a bunch of followers? I want MORE, so I'll have my people convert others by force!"

Envy: "Uh oh -- it turns out that there are deities that AREN'T total douchebags. I'll drag their names through the mud and claim that they're evil!"

Oh, snap!

That's what I'm saying, that person still loving and respecting all humans, take Gandhi for example.Gandhi's quote is my favourite, of course ... be the change you want to see in the world ... or something along those lines.
What is unfortunate ... like so many others, he had certain shortcomings, like refusing, in the case of faith, for his wife to take penicillin (that may have saved her), but took it himself in his own medical concern.
:(

Gandhi's quote is my favourite, of course ... be the change you want to see in the world ... or something along those lines.
What is unfortunate ... like so many others, he had certain shortcomings, like refusing, in the case of faith, for his wife to take penicillin (that may have saved her), but took it himself in his own medical concern.
:(

Of course watching his wife die may have been one of the reasons he took it, he realized much more depended on him.
He also said a lot of bad things about christianity...

I never have a problem with a religion, it's just fun do disprove all of them. My problem is when it's taken too far...

Pride: "I am an omnipotent omniscient god who can do anything"

Gluttony: "You shall slaughter and burn animals that could feed the hungry because I enjoy innocent things dying"

Sloth: "Yeah, I could slay (insert highly evil dictator) before he could slaughter many people, but I'd rather watch Heavenly Idol."

Lust: "Oh snap, I'm a virgin deity. I think I'll bang a woman and not care if she's married."

Wrath: Do I *really* have to link to the 214872568 times in the bible that jehovah gets mad and kills a few thousand?

Greed: "So what if I already have a bunch of followers? I want MORE, so I'll have my people convert others by force!"

Envy: "Uh oh -- it turns out that there are deities that AREN'T total douchebags. I'll drag their names through the mud and claim that they're evil!"


:eek: [/thread]

:eek: [/thread]Yeah, pretty much.

Yeah, pretty much.

Good thing I came in to end it there. Or else it would have just dragged on forever.

agreed.
http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Matt/nap-time-for-omnipotent-beings.png

http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Matt/omnipotent-beings-correcting-their-mistakes.png

Of course watching his wife die may have been one of the reasons he took it, he realized much more depended on him.Actually, it wasn't penicillin, it was quinine he took to stave off malaria. Being a matter of faith, i think, is the distasteful part.
He also said a lot of bad things about christianity...I've done that a few times, but i really don't need to.

I never have a problem with a religion, it's just fun do disprove all of them. My problem is when it's taken too far...Too far to disprove them? I'm not sure i could agree. Disproving any of them is, so long as you're not talking exclusively about faith, isn't very hard. And it is fun to do sometimes. What do you mean by "too far"?

Good thing I came in to end it there. Or else it would have just dragged on forever.
Until God shows up. Oh well, there's plenty of gods and goddesses here to do it anywho.

Until God shows up. Oh well, there's plenty of gods and goddesses here to do it anywho.

Are we talking about the god in my underpants...testiclees?

What do you mean by "too far"?Fanaticism. The act of committing violence towards other purely because of a misalignment of faith.

Fanaticism. The act of committing violence towards other purely because of a misalignment of faith.

"You're basically killing each other over who has the better imaginary friend"
Too lazy to look up who said that

Kagetora;14418507']"You're basically killing each other over who has the better imaginary friend"
Too lazy to look up who said that

yeah, in a nutshell...

Fanaticism. The act of committing violence towards other purely because of a misalignment of faith.
Ah, gotcha. Like [NS]Kagetora says.

I do think he is skilled at what he does but I am not sure that is the same thing. I don't understand how that would work you either work for the same side or you don't. The bible seems to think he is on the other side. As for all the other ideas that may have crept in. I have heard that time and again but it doesn't hold to much water for me.


The bible doesnt think he's on the other side.

Where it has become confused is - people like Jesus use the TITLE 'satan' as a perjorative, meaning 'liar' or 'opponent'- which isn't unreasonable... it's like using 'Romeo' to mean a lover.

The problem arises that later authors writing on the the subject read the TITLE 'satan' as though it were a name. Thus, when they wrote about 'satan', they made all kinds of errors, by conflating meanings.


"How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! 13"But you said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. 14‘I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’" (Isaiah 14:12-14).


Refers to the mortal King of Tyre.


"And another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads were seven diadems.4And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven, and threw them to the earth . . . " (Rev. 12:3-4).


Refers to 'the Dragon'.


Great imagery.

Pretty doesn't mean real or logical. I know a lot of people that think Roger Rabbit's wife is hawt. She's still just a cartoon.

he is all forgiving. It requires 2 things. 1. You need to believe in him and 2. You have to ask for it.

Which wouldn't make him a very 'good' god - because you can't CHOOSE to believe or otherwise.

Thus, he capriciously condemns those who have only the flaws he made them with.

Are we talking about the god in my underpants...testiclees?Of course i am. And one or two of the other local gods demand a blood sacrifice from Testiclees.
Perhaps your god will bless us with a divine golden shower, as Zeus was wont to do?

plenty of evidence for a god i wouldn't want to hire as an engineer. but that's ok, he wasn't applying for the job anyway.

plenty of evidence for a god who is under no obligation to bear the slightest resemblence to anything (nonscholarly fallowers of) christianity, islam, or anyone else, myself included, claims to know about it.

god is wierd, and that's what makes it cool.

You may be able to see why though. Exactly what I was talking about. He had no problem with Jesus or God. People, yes people were to blame because we are ignorant or prejudice or full of wrath. You can not blame God for this event either.


http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/552.htm


Mahatma Gandhi is one of the most respected leaders of modern history. A Hindu, Ghandi nevertheless admired Jesus and often quoted from the Sermon on the Mount. Once when the missionary E. Stanley Jones met with Ghandi he asked him, "Mr. Ghandi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?"


Ghandi replied, "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."


Apparently Ghandi's rejection of Christianity grew out of an incident that happened when he was a young man practising law in South Africa. He had become attracted to the Christian faith, had studied the Bible and the teachings of Jesus, and was seriously exploring becoming a Christian. And so he decided to attend a church service. As he came up the steps of the large church where he intended to go, a white South African elder of the church barred his way at the door. "Where do you think you're going, kaffir?" the man asked Ghandi in a belligerent tone of voice.


Ghandi replied, "I'd like to attend worship here."


The church elder snarled at him, "There's no room for kaffirs in this church. Get out of here or I'll have my assistants throw you down the steps."


From that moment, Ghandi said, he decided to adopt what good he found in Christianity, but would never again consider becoming a Christian if it meant being part of the church.


How we treat those others tells people MORE about what we believe, and what following Jesus means to us, than all the fine sermons we deliver.

plenty of evidence for a god i wouldn't want to hire as an engineer. but that's ok, he wasn't applying for the job anyway.

plenty of evidence for a god who is under no obligation to bear the slightest resemblance to anything (non scholarly followers of) Christianity, Islam, or anyone else, myself included, claims to know about it.

god is weird, and that's what makes it cool.

I second that. I might use the term unique instead of weird.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Gandhi+on+Christianity-a014979845

Even if you are Christian it is hard if not impossible to refute his claims. The idea that we have bulldozer over everything.

Article from here down.

Gandhi had clear criticisms of Christianity. He criticized its cultural imperialism Cultural imperialism is the practice of promoting, distinguishing, separating, or artificially injecting the culture or language of one nation into another. It is usually the case that the former is a large, economically or militarily powerful nation and the latter is a smaller, ; he perceived it to be a destroyer of Indian culture with its aggressive missionary work

His constant plea was for Christians to become more Christian and, in that process, to help Muslims and Hindus to be more faithful to their own traditions.

In a curious--and non systematic fashion he anticipated the intense contemporary discussions among Christian theologians over a whole range of issues: inculturation

Inculturation is a term used in Christian missiology referring to the adaptation of the way the Gospel is presented for the specific cultures being evangelized. It is attuned - but not identical - to the term enculturation used in Sociology.

The Christian view of salvation; the nature of the missionary enterprise; the uniqueness of Christ as savior of the world. One cannot but help think of those issues while reading the selections Ellsberg has culled for this volume.

To flesh out this rather slim collection, Ellsberg provides essays by Diana Eck (of Harvard), peace activist James Douglass, and the Indian Jesuit Ignatius Jesudasan on various aspects of Gandhi's thought in relation to Christ and Christianity. The final essay, by the Maryknoll missionary (in Bangladesh) Bob McCahill, on his mission of "presence" among a largely Muslim population, is a moving and edifying description of Gandhian principles in action.

We hardly need reminding that Gandhi had an enormous influence on people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day, Thomas Merton, Cesar Chavez, and thousands of other 1overs of peace and reconciliation, For that reason alone any work on Gandhi is welcome, not so much for the originality of his thought (his views on Christianity were simple, straightforward, and oft repeated as this anthology shows) but for the power of his example.

Which wouldn't make him a very 'good' god - because you can't CHOOSE to believe or otherwise.

Thus, he capriciously condemns those who have only the flaws he made them with.

He is rather objective in this regard rather than subjective. The rules are similar for all.


Rising above those flaws is the challenge. It is all about getting better and improving.

That whole free will excuse for evil is bullshit! Some people don't get a choice.. The just suffer needlessly!

The bible doesnt think he's on the other side.

Where it has become confused is - people like Jesus use the TITLE 'satan' as a perjorative, meaning 'liar' or 'opponent'- which isn't unreasonable... it's like using 'Romeo' to mean a lover.


***I have heard that parallel before is Jesus always referring to the Devil every time he uses that. I agree with you he may have been using as "The accuser" which still leads you back to the same place. Why is he the Adversary in the first place? You say it is his job***

The problem arises that later authors writing on the the subject read the TITLE 'satan' as though it were a name. Thus, when they wrote about 'satan', they made all kinds of errors, by conflating meanings.



Refers to the mortal King of Tyre.

***Again I have heard that but there other passages dealing with the King of Tyre.

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2001/20010216.htm

"Son of man, because Tyre said concerning Jerusalem, 'Aha, the gate of the peoples is broken, it has swung open to me; I shall be replenished, now that she is laid waste,' therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves."

"Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar [see also Ancient Empires - Babylon] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. He will slay with the sword your daughters on the mainland; he will set up a siege wall against you, and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you; your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as one enters a city which has been breached." (Ezekiel 26:2-3,7-10 RSV)


Further down

"Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord God: "You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, carnelian, topaz, and jasper, chrysolite, beryl, and onyx, sapphire, carbuncle, and emerald; and wrought in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created [see Did God Create The Devil?] they were prepared. With an anointed guardian cherub I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; in the midst of the stones of fire you walked. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you." (Ezekiel 28:12-14 RSV)

***


Refers to 'the Dragon'.

***Who is the Dragon?***

Pretty doesn't mean real or logical. I know a lot of people that think Roger Rabbit's wife is hawt. She's still just a cartoon.

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/creatdev.htm

Satan didn't just refuse to obey God any longer, which was bad enough; he actually tried to overthrow God! The attempted coup failed of course, as described by Jesus Christ: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." (Luke 10:18) (see A Picture O Heaven). This would have occurred long before His birth in Bethlehem as a human (see Rock Of Ages). Satan was still on earth during the time of Jesus' ministry (see Go Ahead, Jump! and That Old Serpent), and was directly involved in His betrayal by Judas Iscariot (see Why Did He Do It?).

***

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/creatdev.htm

Satan didn't just refuse to obey God any longer, which was bad enough; he actually tried to overthrow God! The attempted coup failed of course, as described by Jesus Christ: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." (Luke 10:18) (see A Picture O Heaven). This would have occurred long before His birth in Bethlehem as a human (see Rock Of Ages). Satan was still on earth during the time of Jesus' ministry (see Go Ahead, Jump! and That Old Serpent), and was directly involved in His betrayal by Judas Iscariot (see Why Did He Do It?).

***

Why exactly did Satan do this?

That whole free will excuse for evil is bullshit! Some people don't get a choice.. The just suffer needlessly!

I agree with you. He never promised no suffering. He said he would be with you until you get through it. Why did it have to happen in the first place? Sometimes bad things happen to good people.


Jesus said, `Rain falls on everyone, good and bad.'

http://www.bigquestions.com/

Worked pretty well for me.

I agree with you. He never promised no suffering. He said he would be with you until you get through it. Why did it have to happen in the first place? Sometimes bad things happen to good people.


Jesus said, `Rain falls on everyone, good and bad.'

http://www.bigquestions.com/

Worked pretty well for me.

Really? And how exactly is that just?

Satan didn't just refuse to obey God any longer, which was bad enough; he actually tried to overthrow God!

And that was WRONG of him because... ?
Maybe Satan just did not like the way God murdered innocent kiddies.

"I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity."

- George Gallup, Statistician

Really? And how exactly is that just?

The rain doesn't just fall on the weak or just on the rich or just on the poor etc. It falls on all of equally. Adversity build character apparently that is what he wants from us.

"I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity."

- George Gallup, Statistician

I'm sorry. Unlikely is not the same as impossible.

And that was WRONG of him because... ?
Maybe Satan just did not like the way God murdered innocent kiddies.

Like say Egypt where his own chosen people were enslaved for 400 years? Assuming the above took place. There is no proof per say but just for fun let's say it happened as he said it did.

Did the Egyptian lose any sleep over the misery they inflicted on others? He also made the Jews pay a fairly steep price for it. All their first born were now his children, cattle, goat, sheep, you name they were his.

Unless you had another reference in mind?

Did the Egyptian lose any sleep over the misery they inflicted on others?

Do you believe the kiddies were guilty then ? Or that killing your son is an acceptable thing to do if I have a quarrel with you ?
Or, if you believe that God did the kiddies a favour by "taking them in" - why were the older kids unworthy ?

However, you are dodging the question. Quite aptly I admit, but still.
So..

Why is opposing God WRONG ?

Do you believe the kiddies were guilty then ? Or that killing your son is an acceptable thing to do if I have a quarrel with you ?
Or, if you believe that God did the kiddies a favour by "taking them in" - why were the older kids unworthy ?

However, you are dodging the question. Quite aptly I admit, but still.
So..

Why is opposing God WRONG ?

It wasn't so much the opposing but they way he chose to oppose. You have this big complicated laboratory which is used to create the Universe. You get it in your mind that you want to start your own experiment. You should at least ask the Lab owner if it is okay. Most of us would have done so, within reason. He may have even given his permission. The wrong thing to do is to organize a strike and try to take over the lab. What he really wanted was his own lab and that is not going to happen.

It wasn't so much the opposing but they way he chose to oppose. You have this big complicated laboratory which is used to create the Universe. You get it in your mind that you want to start your own experiment. You should at least ask the Lab owner if it is okay. Most of us would have done so, within reason. He may have even given his permission. The wrong thing to do is to organize a strike and try to take over the lab. What he really wanted was his own lab and that is not going to happen.

Which is all very interesting but it did not answer the question asked. Unless of course your answer is 'it's all about manners innit'

Do you believe the kiddies were guilty then ? Or that killing your son is an acceptable thing to do if I have a quarrel with you ?
Or, if you believe that God did the kiddies a favour by "taking them in" - why were the older kids unworthy ?

However, you are dodging the question. Quite aptly I admit, but still.
So..

Why is opposing God WRONG ?

As for the rest of the question.

Children are always without guilt. They were a casualty.


Or that killing your son is an acceptable thing to do if I have a quarrel with you

You could be referring to Jesus or Abraham. In Jesus's case he was a sacrifice. In Abraham's case he was asked to make a sacrifice as a test that in the end he never had to make.

Which is all very interesting but it did not answer the question asked. Unless of course your answer is 'it's all about manners innit'

Oh yes totally. Respect as well. If he had just turned around at that point and said oops i made a mistake maybe all would have been forgotten. He may have to pull guard duty in the farthest reaches of the galaxy for a few millennium but...

Oh yes totally. Respect as well. If he had just turned around at that point and said oops i made a mistake maybe all would have been forgotten. He may have to pull guard duty in the farthest reaches of the galaxy for a few millennium but...

So then you are saying that rebeling agianst God is bad, because it is consiered rude?

He is rather objective in this regard rather than subjective. The rules are similar for all.


Rising above those flaws is the challenge. It is all about getting better and improving.

Missed the point. How can you 'rise above' the fact that you can't MAKE yourself believe?

That's like arguing I can 'make myself' see through my ears, and punishing me if I don't.

So then you are saying that rebeling against God is bad, because it is considered rude?

Not just rude a sin. Think all the times in the Old Testament that he had to smack us around.

Just a couple of quote

Jeremiah 5:23
But this people hath a revolting and a rebellious heart; they are revolted and gone.

Isaiah 30:9
That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:


He also refuses to be ignored. I think we are somewhat of a disappointment to him sometimes. We get the feeling he would rather takes us completely out of the picture sometimes. How many times did we try to go our own way.?

Then you have the nerve to kill his prophets. He goes to the trouble of writing it down on parchment and the king rips it up before the eyes of the guy who drafted it. So he sends his son and you kill him and now you wonder why he won't talk with you?


It is just the gall of the whole situation.

The rain doesn't just fall on the weak or just on the rich or just on the poor etc. It falls on all of equally. Adversity build character apparently that is what he wants from us.

This week I am suffering from flu.

This week the LRA set fire to a crowded church.

Would this be the equal suffering you are talking about?

I think I need to build character.. Should I walk into a burning building?

Missed the point. How can you 'rise above' the fact that you can't MAKE yourself believe?

That's like arguing I can 'make myself' see through my ears, and punishing me if I don't.

http://demo.lutherproductions.com/bibletutor/level1/program/start/people/gideon.htm

I understand your dilemma. Your problem is far tougher to solve. You have to ask for it. Sometimes you "put out a fleece" which is absolutely acceptable, it was done in the Bible so many times it is not funny.

You basically make a simple request that he show himself to you by some type of sign. Don't ask for a 3 day long firework display with a full marching band. Ask for something reasonable.


Gideon was called to be a leader during the Period of the Judges. Israel was being invaded by the Midianites, who came from the east on camels. To see if God would deliver Israel by his hand, Gideon placed a fleece of wool on the ground. He asked that there be dew on the fleece, but that the ground would be dry. This sign occurred and Gideon prepared for battle. God told him to reduce the number of his men by having them drink from a stream. Those who drank directly from the stream were sent home and those who scooped water in their hands were kept. Each warrior was given a trumpet, a jar, and a torch. At the signal they blew the trumpets and smashed the jars. Thrown into confusion, the Midianites fled before Gideon's men. After the victory, people asked Gideon to be their ruler, but he refused the honor.



Gideon actually asked and got 2 in a row. This is a better quote.

Judges 6:36-40 (King James Version)

36And Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said,

37Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and if the dew be on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth beside, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said.

38And it was so: for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wringed the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water.

39And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew.

40And God did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground.

Not just rude a sin.

No, GOD says it is a sin to oppose God.
Mr Godwin says:
Hitler says it is a sin to oppose Hitler.

See why that is not an argument ;) ?

Besides, if God is the professor who created us in his lab, why should we germs be morally obligated to care about his wishes for us ? Infest and eat I say ;)

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/creatdev.htm

Satan didn't just refuse to obey God any longer, which was bad enough; he actually tried to overthrow God! The attempted coup failed of course, as described by Jesus Christ: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." (Luke 10:18) (see A Picture O Heaven). This would have occurred long before His birth in Bethlehem as a human (see Rock Of Ages). Satan was still on earth during the time of Jesus' ministry (see Go Ahead, Jump! and That Old Serpent), and was directly involved in His betrayal by Judas Iscariot (see Why Did He Do It?).

***

There are several places - especially in the Gospels - where it is obvious that text has been transferred from elsewhere within the scripture.

Sometimes, we have direct evidence of it - early versions of Luke that DON'T have certain passages, which you can compare to later versions that DO have those passages. In general, these redactions take parallel ideas and apply them - which sounds like an honest endeavour, rather than deliberately amending the text just to serve some selfish end.

(Note: The whole Great Commission is such an addition, but in that case, the material is created out of whole cloth, and doesn't originate in any other scriptural text.)

In this case - Luke 10:18 - the text doesn't fit it's surrounding. It breaks the flow, and adds nothing. Luke 10:18 is a redaction to amend the Tyre reference from earlier in the same chapter - but it shouldn't be considered valid, even in the context.

There are several reasons for that position - mainly, that it doesn't fit the established chronology of the rest of the scripture. If you read the 'fallen angel' chronology - the angels being cast out of heaven is prophetic, not referring to a past event, and it's impossible to reconcile the two different chronologoes.

Either: 'satan' was already chthonic (when he talked through a mere serpent in the garden, or when he told Jehovah he had been walking the earth, in Job)... or he falls... in which case he DIDN'T walk the earth, and he WASN'T in the garden. And in either case, it makes the Revelation text nonsense.

"I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity."

- George Gallup, Statistician

George Gallup is clearly an idiot.

The probability of ANYTHING that already exists... is 100%.

http://demo.lutherproductions.com/bibletutor/level1/program/start/people/gideon.htm

I understand your dilemma. Your problem is far tougher to solve.

I don't have a dilemma. I don't have a problem.

A god that would punish you for not believing, but that would make you that way, and would punish you for something you couldn't change - is not a god worth worshipping.

This week I am suffering from flu.

This week the LRA set fire to a crowded church.

Would this be the equal suffering you are talking about?

I think I need to build character.. Should I walk into a burning building?

This week I am suffering from flu.
*** Firstly get better soon. I like Tylenol Cold and Flu work like a charm. If you are home use the Nighttime if you are at work use the daytime.***

This week the LRA set fire to a crowded church.
***People are stupid, they don't get it, what can I say. may those who died in the fire rest in peace. Please forgive the idiots that did this.***

I think I need to build character.. Should I walk into a burning building?
***If you can be a firefighter by all means do so. Almost ensures you get to heaven. Risking yourself for another is the most noble thing a person can do. Before you run into the fire just say "Jesus keep me safe". That is all he asks for really. The rest you are already doing***

George Gallup is clearly an idiot.

The probability of ANYTHING that already exists... is 100%.



He is a math guy. What do you want? :D

This week I am suffering from flu.
*** Firstly get better soon. I like Tylenol Cold and Flu work like a charm. If you are home use the Nighttime if you are at work use the daytime.***

This week the LRA set fire to a crowded church.
***People are stupid, they don't get it, what can I say. may those who died in the fire rest in peace. Please forgive the idiots that did this.***

I think I need to build character.. Should I walk into a burning building?
***If you can be a firefighter by all means do so. Almost ensures you get to heaven. Risking yourself for another is the most noble thing a person can do. Before you run into the fire just say "Jesus keep me safe". That is all he asks for really. The rest you are already doing***

You didn't answer my question. Is mine and their suffering as equal as you say?

You didn't answer my question. Is mine and their suffering as equal as you say?

How can you compare suffering? What are we using as a "yardstick"? All of it is bad.

I don't have a dilemma. I don't have a problem.

A god that would punish you for not believing, but that would make you that way, and would punish you for something you couldn't change - is not a god worth worshiping.

That is called Pride and that is a problem, so I am told. Why should I or anyone be judged? See below

http://www.gotquestions.org/pride-Bible.html

There is a difference between the kind of pride that God hates (Proverbs 8:13) and the kind of pride we feel about a job well done. The kind of pride that stems from self-righteousness is sin and God hates it because it is a hindrance to seeking Him. Psalm 10:4 explains that the proud are so consumed with themselves that their thoughts are far from God: “In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.” This kind of haughty pride is the opposite of the spirit of humility that God seeks: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3). The “poor in spirit” are those who recognize their utter spiritual bankruptcy and their inability to come to God aside from His divine grace. The proud, on the other hand, are so blinded by their pride that think they have no need of God or worse, that God should accept them as they are because they deserve His acceptance.

No, GOD says it is a sin to oppose God.
Mr Godwin says:
Hitler says it is a sin to oppose Hitler.

See why that is not an argument ;) ?

Besides, if God is the professor who created us in his lab, why should we germs be morally obligated to care about his wishes for us ? Infest and eat I say ;)

Mr. Godwin was trying to take a page from his book. You have to ask yourself were Hitler and God speaking from the same point of view?


With regard to the germs. He has policy for everything. If the germs don't do what he wants he has big can of disinfectant!:D

It is also his Petri dish, his microscope, his tongs, his Bunsen burner.

That is called Pride and that is a problem, so I am told. Why should I or anyone be judged? See below

http://www.gotquestions.org/pride-Bible.html

There is a difference between the kind of pride that God hates (Proverbs 8:13) and the kind of pride we feel about a job well done. The kind of pride that stems from self-righteousness is sin and God hates it because it is a hindrance to seeking Him. Psalm 10:4 explains that the proud are so consumed with themselves that their thoughts are far from God: “In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.” This kind of haughty pride is the opposite of the spirit of humility that God seeks: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3). The “poor in spirit” are those who recognize their utter spiritual bankruptcy and their inability to come to God aside from His divine grace. The proud, on the other hand, are so blinded by their pride that think they have no need of God or worse, that God should accept them as they are because they deserve His acceptance.

I think you're missing the point.

Being judged is fine. If God exists and knows everything, he should have the capacity. I have no problem with being judged.

The issue is that God has arbitrarily chosen criteria that means we will fail, and he knows this, and yet still judges us. And indeed creates us flawed, and then judges us for being flawed.

That is quintessentially unfair.

Mr. Godwin was trying to take a page from his book. You have to ask yourself were Hitler and God speaking from the same point of view?

Does it matter ? If someone declares that it is a sin/crime/whatever negative word you wish to use to disagree with them, it does NOT mean he/she/it is right. Hitler is an easy example because nowadays disagree with him, but it works equally well for your greatest idol.

With regard to the germs. He has policy for everything. If the germs don't do what he wants he has big can of disinfectant!:D
It is also his Petri dish, his microscope, his tongs, his Bunsen burner.

So... we should worship out of fear ?

I think you're missing the point.

Being judged is fine. If God exists and knows everything, he should have the capacity. I have no problem with being judged.

The issue is that God has arbitrarily chosen criteria that means we will fail, and he knows this, and yet still judges us. And indeed creates us flawed, and then judges us for being flawed.

That is quintessentially unfair.

Wow you put forward a good argument. Let me consider this for a moment. I am only an apologist in training not a full fledged Apologist, yet but I am working on it.



Can you expand on this point a little?

The issue is that God has arbitrarily chosen criteria that means we will fail, and he knows this, and yet still judges us. And indeed creates us flawed, and then judges us for being flawed.


To start off he created us with a clean slate. We chose to fall away. I am interested which criteria are those that are doomed to fail?

Does it matter ? If someone declares that it is a sin/crime/whatever negative word you wish to use to disagree with them, it does NOT mean he/she/it is right. Hitler is an easy example because nowadays disagree with him, but it works equally well for your greatest idol.



So... we should worship out of fear ?

I think he would prefer Love but will accept Fear. Then you have to take his argument and try to find fault with. Does it make sense? Can I trust it? Where does it break down? Does he contradict himself?

He we have some issues however what appears to happen is you have experts, I have experts and those experts disagree especially with regard to the language back to my old statement I wish there were another language to refer at a similar time to the one it was written in. I am sure the same problem would work their way in because that is the point to cause confusion. So saw how many post me a grave have gone through disagreeing on the message of who is the article is even talking about.

Clarity we need I agree I am not sure where that clarity will come from.

There is also a fundamental shift from the old testament to the New Testament. Some say that because Jesus was the "New Deal". Some say he had the authority and the right to make those changes. Some say he was a false prophet or worse a fool or a madman.

This requires wisdom you have to decide for yourself. To me he feels like "the one". I admit I do not speak the root language so it somewhat clouds the issue but the rest I feel was bang on.

Religion should not be about what you eat, the way you dress, which day you have off and which day you worship.

Eat what you want drink what you want. Do good works. Worship when you can. Try to be a good person. If you make a mistake ask for forgiveness and try to make amends. Love God and Love your neighbor! That is it no magic at all.

Can you expand on this point a little?

The issue is that God has arbitrarily chosen criteria that means we will fail, and he knows this, and yet still judges us. And indeed creates us flawed, and then judges us for being flawed.

Can you expand on this point a little?

The issue is that God has arbitrarily chosen criteria that means we will fail, and he knows this, and yet still judges us. And indeed creates us flawed, and then judges us for being flawed.

1)
Well, we have free will, the capacity to choose. We have a brain, we can use reason to interpret the world.

In the face of this he demands blind faith, in ONE particular religion. In a world with multiple religions. (this leads to the sub-question of choice if you are born into a world where all you ever know is religion x, you never get to hear about religion y, yet will be damned for not following religion y) In a world where using our intellect we discover things that contradict the contents of the bible. Is intellect a flaw? Is free choice a flaw? If not, then why do they often contradict Christian dogma. If they are, why give us them?

2) Why create us with the capacity to sin in the first place?

3) Why allow sin?

4) Why create the world, and people, KNOWING they will sin (even though it is within your power to prevent it, if you are omnipotent as well as omniscient), and then punish them for sinning?

PS - if we started with a clean slate we would not have to ask for forgiveness, which is a central tenet of Christianity. Unless of course, by our very nature, we fall into sin, and everyone does.....

1)
Well, we have free will, the capacity to choose. We have a brain, we can use reason to interpret the world.

In the face of this he demands blind faith, in ONE particular religion. In a world with multiple religions. (this leads to the sub-question of choice if you are born into a world where all you ever know is religion x, you never get to hear about religion y, yet will be damned for not following religion y) In a world where using our intellect we discover things that contradict the contents of the bible. Is intellect a flaw? Is free choice a flaw? If not, then why do they often contradict Christian dogma. If they are, why give us them?

2) Why create us with the capacity to sin in the first place?

3) Why allow sin?

4) Why create the world, and people, KNOWING they will sin (even though it is within your power to prevent it, if you are omnipotent as well as omniscient), and then punish them for sinning?

PS - if we started with a clean slate we would not have to ask for forgiveness, which is a central tenet of Christianity. Unless of course, by our very nature, we fall into sin, and everyone does.....



I have to dissect this up somewhat.

In the face of this he demands blind faith, in ONE particular religion. In a world with multiple religions. (this leads to the sub-question of choice if you are born into a world where all you ever know is religion x, you never get to hear about religion y, yet will be damned for not following religion y) In a world where using our intellect we discover things that contradict the contents of the bible. Is intellect a flaw? Is free choice a flaw? If not, then why do they often contradict Christian dogma. If they are, why give us them?

This is the sowing of the tares. This was not done by him but by the other side. With regard to people in those situations. I do feel the most sympathy for them. I hope at this point that number of people is reducing. If they are indoctrinated at a early age, it is quite difficult to undo all that programming. There is hope though and time to change ways. He is nothing but patient.

2) Free will handles most of this

3) He tries to get you to change from within rather than constantly intervening.

4) Some of this is original sin which has been tossed around since there was a church. Why put the apple tree there in the first place? Something along that line? If there was no opportunity to sin you would not have need for free will.

PS - if we started with a clean slate we would not have to ask for forgiveness, which is a central tenet of Christianity. Unless of course, by our very nature, we fall into sin, and everyone does.....

PS response: He sent his son to die because of this "He kind of created the problem as it were, and the solution" The stacked deck argument works until before Jesus came. Afterwords, I am not sure one can say this anymore.

I think he would prefer Love but will accept Fear.

Then we return to the previous question: why is opposing him wrong ?
Sure, there is a HUGE chance you will be destroyed - but might does not make right. And Christianity even considers self-sacrifice noble ;)

Then you have to take his argument and try to find fault with. Does it make sense? Can I trust it? Where does it break down? Does he contradict himself?

Ah. There we have a problem.
God does not provide an argument. God does not provide reasoning.
God merely commands and demands obedience. God does not feel He needs to justify Himself.

I, obviously, disagree.

Once again, if jehovah was good, why didn't he make things good vs neutral instead of good vs. evil?

I have to dissect this up somewhat.

In the face of this he demands blind faith, in ONE particular religion. In a world with multiple religions. (this leads to the sub-question of choice if you are born into a world where all you ever know is religion x, you never get to hear about religion y, yet will be damned for not following religion y) In a world where using our intellect we discover things that contradict the contents of the bible. Is intellect a flaw? Is free choice a flaw? If not, then why do they often contradict Christian dogma. If they are, why give us them?

This is the sowing of the tares. This was not done by him but by the other side. With regard to people in those situations. I do feel the most sympathy for them. I hope at this point that number of people is reducing. If they are indoctrinated at a early age, it is quite difficult to undo all that programming. There is hope though and time to change ways. He is nothing but patient.


So God allows 'the other side' power over the earth, even though he could intervene at any time to stop it. Why? In the case of not being aware of any other religions, how is that the fault of the person involved? If it is 'the other side' s fault, why does God allow it when he has power over everything? Doesn't that sound a little unfair? The whole situation was created and allowed by God.

He isn't patient. We only have our life on Earth, after that his patience for forgiveness ends. How is that patience, given these situations?


2) Free will handles most of this


How?


3) He tries to get you to change from within rather than constantly intervening.


He tries, but does not always succeed. Why? Because he is not capable of changing us, or because he chooses to let us damn ourselves?


4) Some of this is original sin which has been tossed around since there was a church. Why put the apple tree there in the first place? Something along that line? If there was no opportunity to sin you would not have need for free will.


Which goes back to the question of 'why give us free will, but damn us for using it?'. If anything is possible for God, why not create a world where we have free will, but cannot sin?


PS - if we started with a clean slate we would not have to ask for forgiveness, which is a central tenet of Christianity. Unless of course, by our very nature, we fall into sin, and everyone does.....

PS response: He sent his son to die because of this "He kind of created the problem as it were, and the solution" The stacked deck argument works until before Jesus came. Afterwords, I am not sure one can say this anymore.

Regardless of original sin, all churches preach that we all should ask for forgiveness. Why? Is it because we all sin? If so, doesn't that demonstrate that God created us with a bias towards sinning? The deck starts stacking as soon as we are born.

Then we return to the previous question: why is opposing him wrong ?
Sure, there is a HUGE chance you will be destroyed - but might does not make right. And Christianity even considers self-sacrifice noble ;)

***For me it is some of it is the HUGE chance. The other is most of the laws make sense and I would likely try to steer clear of on my own. The might thing I can't really argue***

Ah. There we have a problem.
God does not provide an argument. God does not provide reasoning.
God merely commands and demands obedience. God does not feel He needs to justify Himself.

I, obviously, disagree.


He does provide a certain level of reasoning in Proverbs.


So let's review

1. Thou shall have no other God before me

He mentioned already he is a jealous God

2. Do not create Idols
For one Idols are useless and as symbol you are violating rule 1

3. Do not use the name of the lord your God in vain
Again a respect issue

4. Remember the Sabbath and keep in Holy
Again a respect issue but also for instruction and correction

5. Honor your Father and Mother
Again a respect issue but the are limits to this

6. Thou shall not kill
Again there are limits

7. You shall not commit adultery.
You will likely make that person upset if you do and may cause worse sins to be committed murder etc.

8. You shall not steal
You will likely make that person upset if you do and may cause worse sins to be committed murder etc.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
Lying is a bad idea and may lead to other things. This seems to me to be more like lying under oath or bringing false charges

10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor

Pretty easy one as well because this may lead you to other sins such Adultery, Stealing, Murder


I think those are most of the reason you may know of other please share if you do.

The other is most of the laws make sense and I would likely try to steer clear of on my own.

But some others do not make sense. Admittedly, most of those are in the Old Testament which many Christians claim is overwritten by the New one - but it remains odd that God once ordered such things. And that oddness makes me doubt His fitness to guide me.

I think those are most of the reason you may know of other please share if you do.

The Bible contains over 300 commands ;) Many of them contradicting the ones you just posted - for instance the do not kill commandment. Finding reasoning and principles that explain them ALL is a task the churches have not been able to complete sofar - and some explanations that fit remarkably well are... undesireable. We generally do not like to think of woman and children as property, to be valued by the husband for instance.

But - feel free to help them :) I do fear it would require a book the size of the Bible itself though.

That is called Pride


No, it isn't.

I can't choose faith, any more than you can. I can't 'be' Christian just because I might want to (and, god only knows it would make my life easier if I were a Christian).

Saying that I can't 'choose' to believe is the exact opposite of pride - it is me saying that this is something I can't do.


...and that is a problem, so I am told.


Snake oil.

Here's the problem. Here's the medicine. Of course, you only 'need' the medicine because you now believe you have the problem that I just claimed for you...


Why should I or anyone be judged? See below


Irrelevent. You're missing the point.


There is a difference between the kind of pride that God hates (Proverbs 8:13) and the kind of pride we feel about a job well done. The kind of pride that stems from self-righteousness is sin and God hates it because it is a hindrance to seeking Him.


Exactly the inverse - if there IS a god, HE has hindered me from seeing him. That's not my fault.


Psalm 10:4 explains that the proud are so consumed with themselves that their thoughts are far from God: “In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.” This kind of haughty pride is the opposite of the spirit of humility that God seeks: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3). The “poor in spirit” are those who recognize their utter spiritual bankruptcy


Actually, the 'poor in spirit' are those that doubt - like Thomas.


...and their inability to come to God aside from His divine grace. The proud, on the other hand, are so blinded by their pride that think they have no need of God or worse, that God should accept them as they are because they deserve His acceptance.

Spiritual cop-out. An attempt to explain how not being able to believe is somehow the fault of the creation, not the creator.

Sorry, if an artisan does shit work, he's not that good an artisan. It's not the fault of the tool.

I think you're missing the point.

Being judged is fine. If God exists and knows everything, he should have the capacity. I have no problem with being judged.

The issue is that God has arbitrarily chosen criteria that means we will fail, and he knows this, and yet still judges us. And indeed creates us flawed, and then judges us for being flawed.

That is quintessentially unfair.

Exactly.

The argument is that you are created. You are then judged for failings IMPLICIT in your creation.

It is quintessentially unfair to set these kind of no-win-scenario tests, but if you accept the Judeo-Christian God, it's his modus operandi, from Eden onwards.

I'm using the ilklustration of Atheism, here, because it is enough to condemn you.


To start off he created us with a clean slate.


No - he didn't, actually. If failing to accept Jesus is sufficient to condemn, then we all start condemned, not 'clean'. You have to LEARN Jesus.


We chose to fall away.


Not at all. I'd say no one ever chose to believe or not to believe. You can choose to SAY you believe or you don't, but you can't change your belief by will.

I am interested which criteria are those that are doomed to fail?

In this specific example, the ability to believe or not, which is not something we 'choose' to do, so MUST be implicit in our consturction.

It's setting you up for a test you've been DESIGNED to fail.

He does provide a certain level of reasoning in Proverbs.


So let's review

1. Thou shall have no other God before me

He mentioned already he is a jealous God

2. Do not create Idols
For one Idols are useless and as symbol you are violating rule 1

3. Do not use the name of the lord your God in vain
Again a respect issue

4. Remember the Sabbath and keep in Holy
Again a respect issue but also for instruction and correction

5. Honor your Father and Mother
Again a respect issue but the are limits to this

6. Thou shall not kill
Again there are limits

7. You shall not commit adultery.
You will likely make that person upset if you do and may cause worse sins to be committed murder etc.

8. You shall not steal
You will likely make that person upset if you do and may cause worse sins to be committed murder etc.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
Lying is a bad idea and may lead to other things. This seems to me to be more like lying under oath or bringing false charges

10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor

Pretty easy one as well because this may lead you to other sins such Adultery, Stealing, Murder


I think those are most of the reason you may know of other please share if you do.

Jehovah denies the very existence of his parents.

Jehovah slaughters millinos of innocent humans.

Jehovah commits adultery with mary.

Jehovah covets and steals the animals of his people, as well as the worshippers and land of less-offensive "deities".

Jehovah commits libel about the other 'deities" multiple times.

Have you considered renaming the Ten Commandments to the Ten Hypocrisies?

So God allows 'the other side' power over the earth, even though he could intervene at any time to stop it. Why? In the case of not being aware of any other religions, how is that the fault of the person involved? If it is 'the other side' s fault, why does God allow it when he has power over everything? Doesn't that sound a little unfair? The whole situation was created and allowed by God.


That is the game or the experiment. He gave power over the earth to the dark side. He said fine you can have the earth. I will take the afterlife. I agree with you it is not the fault of the individual. I hope he is most merciful on them. Some of the "Why he allows it is free will but the other is the hope that you will determine what the right message is and follow that one" I agree this is by far the most difficult. Again I hope he is most merciful on those who get it wrong. If he had to send someone back. I would hope this would be their top priority. Give them the signs, give them whatever they need to determine the true path. My prayers have yet to be answered. Let's face it everyone he has that same question. Anyone can seem a false prophet depending on how you spin the information.


He isn't patient. We only have our life on Earth, after that his patience for forgiveness ends. How is that patience, given these situations?

How?

He waits and watches. He influences every now and then. The one that comes to mind is Blaise Pascal. He was in a carriage crash and his life hung by a thread. He gave him the message he was looking for. He wrote in on a note that he always carried with him after the crash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal

Read the Brush with Death and later on the Miracle


He tries, but does not always succeed. Why? Because he is not capable of changing us, or because he chooses to let us damn ourselves?

I guess he let us damn ourselves given those choices.


Which goes back to the question of 'why give us free will, but damn us for using it?'. If anything is possible for God, why not create a world where we have free will, but cannot sin?

That would not be Free Will then it would be something else

Regardless of original sin, all churches preach that we all should ask for forgiveness. Why? Is it because we all sin? If so, doesn't that demonstrate that God created us with a bias towards sinning? The deck starts stacking as soon as we are born.

Is it because we all sin? Yes, I have long consider this. This is a tough one. With the exception of original sin is it possible to live a life free from sin? Jesus showed us it was possible, he was however part divine. For an ordinary person is it possible? I am not sure

If so, doesn't that demonstrate that God created us with a bias towards sinning? I think the world creates a bias for sin. Think of all the advertising for supposedly sinful products and services. Add that the media and entertainment industries that show stories about what it would be like to kill for money or cheat on your spouse.


The deck starts stacking as soon as we are born. I agree with you from that stand point the deck is stacked sometimes. It depends on who is dealing at each moment in time.


Take any of the following word and add a excess or extreme lack of and what do you get?

Piety

Sympathy

Anger

Wealth

Power

Honor

Reason

Self Control

You are good at this I must admit.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle;14420925]No, it isn't.

I can't choose faith, any more than you can. I can't 'be' Christian just because I might want to (and, god only knows it would make my life easier if I were a Christian).


Saying that I can't 'choose' to believe is the exact opposite of pride - it is me saying that this is something I can't do.

I must have misread you initial post. So it is more about the clarification / proof for you?


Snake oil.

Here's the problem. Here's the medicine. Of course, you only 'need' the medicine because you now believe you have the problem that I just claimed for you...



Irrelevent. You're missing the point.



Exactly the inverse - if there IS a god, HE has hindered me from seeing him. That's not my fault.

How did he hinder you?


Actually, the 'poor in spirit' are those that doubt - like Thomas.

He did and was shown.


Spiritual cop-out. An attempt to explain how not being able to believe is somehow the fault of the creation, not the creator.

Sorry, if an artisan does shit work, he's not that good an artisan. It's not the fault of the tool.

I have to consider this point.

Please learn how to quote text, this is very confusing.

I do not enjoy editing your posts to make them readable.


That is the game or the experiment. He gave power over the earth to the dark side. He said fine you can have the earth. I will take the afterlife. I agree with you it is not the fault of the individual. I hope he is most merciful on them. Some of the "Why he allows it is free will but the other is the hope that you will determine what the right message is and follow that one" I agree this is by far the most difficult. Again I hope he is most merciful on those who get it wrong. If he had to send someone back. I would hope this would be their top priority. Give them the signs, give them whatever they need to determine the true path. My prayers have yet to be answered. Let's face it everyone he has that same question. Anyone can seem a false prophet depending on how you spin the information.


Signs that can be interpreted as part of their 'false religion', messages that never reach them. How can you be free to choose a choice you are not aware exists?

So you don't have an answer on that one? You just 'hope' God will do something different to what he says he will do. You hope God / the Church is lying about if and how He will punish our sins.

This example is a microcosm of the whole problem. It's just a bit clearer because there are less variables.



He waits and watches. He influences every now and then. The one that comes to mind is Blaise Pascal. He was in a carriage crash and his life hung by a thread. He gave him the message he was looking for. He wrote in on a note that he always carried with him after the crash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal

Read the Brush with Death and later on the Miracle


That's great for the one or two, or hundred people that get this lucky influence. Shame for the billions of others who are damned, who he chooses not to help.

And if he DOES show everyone, but some of us do not realize, then why did he not try harder? Why did he not make us able to fathom these hints? Why does he render himself impotent?

I guess he let us damn ourselves given those choices.

That would not be Free Will then it would be something else

God can do whatever he wants. He can make that situation with free will, but does not. Or do you doubt God's power to create free will in that situation?



Is it because we all sin? Yes, I have long consider this. This is a tough one. With the exception of original sin is it possible to live a life free from sin? Jesus showed us it was possible, he was however part divine. For an ordinary person is it possible? I am not sure

Which is part of the 'creating us flawed, and judging us for being flawed' argument.



I think the world creates a bias for sin. Think of all the advertising for supposedly sinful products and services. Add that the media and entertainment industries that show stories about what it would be like to kill for money or cheat on your spouse.
Where does the world come from? Who sets the parameters for what can exist within it? Who KNOWS what will exist in it, what choices will be made, who will be eternally damned and who will not, before any of it occurs, but lets it all happen?



The deck starts stacking as soon as we are born. I agree with you from that stand point the deck is stacked sometimes. It depends on who is dealing at each moment in time.

GnI put a succinct argument to this. I will just add that who the dealer is, is irrelevant. God allows the dealing.

Take any of the following word and add a excess or extreme lack of and what do you get?

Piety

Sympathy

Anger

Wealth

Power

Honor

Reason

Self Control

No meaningful point that I can fathom.

My answers are in between

I'm using the illustration of Atheism, here, because it is enough to condemn you.



No - he didn't, actually. If failing to accept Jesus is sufficient to condemn, then we all start condemned, not 'clean'. You have to LEARN Jesus.


This goes back to the tares. I agree with you to a point. What we are seeing on earth is some kind of wheat-tare hybrid. It has parts all mixed up and intertwined. You can't tell where one begins and the other ends. If you never learn Jesus because of culture or doubt what chance is there?

I wrestle with this myself. Their scripture conflicts with our scripture. Both have opponents, both claim to be the only source of wisdom. What should I use as my Divining rod?


Not at all. I'd say no one ever chose to believe or not to believe. You can choose to SAY you believe or you don't, but you can't change your belief by will.

See above I agree.

In this specific example, the ability to believe or not, which is not something we 'choose' to do, so MUST be implicit in our construction.

I draw the line here. We learn our belief from our parents, grand parent, teacher, family, neighbors, counselors, and clergy. If all the above tell that x,y,z is what to believe then what chance do I have?


It's setting you up for a test you've been DESIGNED to fail.

I will let the big man answer this one. With some of the criteria you used above. It is an uphill test if not impossible.

Anyone can seem a false prophet depending on how you spin the information.


Sometimes, it's not about spin.

There are numerous things that would make Jesus a False Prophet.

First - his teachings about working on the Sabbath, and what you are allowed to eat.

Deuteronomy 18:9 "When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations."

Preaching that it was okay to do certain types of work on the Sabbath, or that it was okay to eat previously proscribed food... is challenging Levitical Law - it is commission of 'abomination' by 'doing after' the manner of the other nations.

Second - his prophecy (outside the age of prophecy) failed to be fulfilled.

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

If you can find even one prophecy unfulfilled, it makes the prophet false. Even prophecy that is correct... even miracles... are not enough to offset ONE faulty prophecy

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn [you] away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. "

Prophecy, dreaming of dreams, signs and wonders... all can be marks of the FALSE prophet, as well as the true prophet.

The markers in Deuteronomy 13 for FALSE prophecy are not keeping commandments, and making (even one) prophecy that is unfulfilled.

And, for an example of prophecy unfulfilled:

Luke 21:32 "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled."

That is - when you set a time limit (such as one generation, or even more specifically, THIS generation) and the prophecy is not fulfilled within that scope, it is false prophecy.


It is fairly easy to spot a False Prophet, according to the wisdom handed down by Jehovah God. Unfortunately, 'Jesus' is marked as a False Prophet by pretty much every marker.

Wow first off you have done this before. Kudo. Well argued. I do need to learn how to quote multiple source. I am sorry for readability. I will do my answers on top pulling out just the question where possible.

So you don't have an answer on that one? You just 'hope' God will do something different to what he says he will do. You hope God / the Church is lying about if and how He will punish our sins.

The short answer is who can say. I wish I had this much insight. I fell pretty confident in my choices though it could also be "brain washing". The whole sowing of the tares thing I discussed with Grave n Idle. I agree he needs to clarify this department. I pray for this frequently. I concur.


That's great for the one or two, or hundred people that get this lucky influence. Shame for the billions of others who are damned, who he chooses not to help.

What are the criteria for an intervention. I am not sure. I do not have a good answer. You got me on this one as well.


That would not be Free Will then it would be something else
God can do whatever he wants. He can make that situation with free will, but does not. Or do you doubt God's power to create free will in that situation?

Short of zapping the person out of existence I am not sure what he would do? With regard to Free Will as I understand you need 3 Things the ability to do right, the ability to do wrong and something to act on.

If he remove the chance to sin. The you won't sin because there is not chance.

If he removes the object you may just find another or won't be a sin because the object is not there


Which is part of the 'creating us flawed, and judging us for being flawed' argument.

I am not sure we are "created flawed" or quickly become flawed on our own accord. Is that because of us or something else?

GnI put a succinct argument to this. I will just add that who the dealer is, is irrelevant. God allows the dealing. He does allow the dealing hoping we will choose correctly.



Please learn how to quote text, this is very confusing.

I do not enjoy editing your posts to make them readable.



Signs that can be interpreted as part of their 'false religion', messages that never reach them. How can you be free to choose a choice you are not aware exists?

So you don't have an answer on that one? You just 'hope' God will do something different to what he says he will do. You hope God / the Church is lying about if and how He will punish our sins.

This example is a microcosm of the whole problem. It's just a bit clearer because there are less variables.



That's great for the one or two, or hundred people that get this lucky influence. Shame for the billions of others who are damned, who he chooses not to help.

And if he DOES show everyone, but some of us do not realize, then why did he not try harder? Why did he not make us able to fathom these hints? Why does he render himself impotent?


God can do whatever he wants. He can make that situation with free will, but does not. Or do you doubt God's power to create free will in that situation?



Which is part of the 'creating us flawed, and judging us for being flawed' argument.




Where does the world come from? Who sets the parameters for what can exist within it? Who KNOWS what will exist in it, what choices will be made, who will be eternally damned and who will not, before any of it occurs, but lets it all happen?



GnI put a succinct argument to this. I will just add that who the dealer is, is irrelevant. God allows the dealing.



No meaningful point that I can fathom.

You are good at this I must admit.


If I am 'good at this', I have come by it honestly. My endeavour has been to find truth, not to prove... or disprove... anything.

What you are receiving is distilled from 20 years of searching for truth.


How did he hinder you?


If: there is a god

And: he designed me

And: he requires faith to avoid condemnation

And: I will be punished for rejecting him

Then: the test is bad. The case is fixed - there is no way I could win. If all those things are true, I am as I am made, and the test was set knowing I would fail, but not through any 'fault' of my own.

Grave & Holy Cheese and Shoes

You are guys are too good. I have to retreat to the North land again. I will read this over and consider this. Both have points I can not defend against. I started reading yours Grave but it needs time to settle anyway a lot of stuff in there.

If you never learn Jesus because of culture or doubt what chance is there?


Scripturally?

A literal reading of scripture says that the aborted foetus, the child too young to learn, and the foreigners living in isolation... are damned for ignorance.


I draw the line here. We learn our belief from our parents, grand parent, teacher, family, neighbors, counselors, and clergy. If all the above tell that x,y,z is what to believe then what chance do I have?


That doesn't add up.

For one - if belief were that simple and mechanical, no one would ever convert.

Another point - my parents, grandparents, teacher, family, neighbours... etc... were Christian. I was Christian. But apparently being RAISED to a belief isn't enough to make one believe. And - even BELIEVING isn't enough to make one CONTINUE believing.


It is an uphill test if not impossible.

It is an impossible task. But that's okay, because it's par for the course. The first test the bible ever mentions was rigged for failure.

No worries.

copy and paste the [ QUOTE=<poster name and some long number>] to the start of each bit you want in a quote box, and add on [/QUOTE] to the end of the bit of text you want in the box. Repeat for each bit of text you want 'boxed, and insert your comment in between:

you will get something like this on the 'advanced editing page, with preview

(this is a jpeg of the screen)

--

http://i691.photobucket.com/albums/vv279/utterly_inept/example-1.jpg


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

You don't need to do that each time if you're quoting the same person for the whole post, you can just put

[QUOTE] before every bit you want to address after the initial [QUOTE=Truly Blessed;....]

Grave & Holy Cheese and Shoes

You are guys are too good. I have to retreat to the North land again. I will read this over and consider this. Both have points I can not defend against. I started reading yours Grave but it needs time to settle anyway a lot of stuff in there.

As with GnI, it's not that I practice anti-religious arguments. It's more that having seen many theological positions, they do not appear tenable when cross-examined. Examining them in detail means you get to the heart of the matter, which is far more preferable than blithe acceptance (or blithe non-acceptance for that matter).

Enjoy your time up north!

You don't need to do that each time if you're quoting the same person for the whole post, you can just put

[QUOTE] before every bit you want to address after the initial [QUOTE=Truly Blessed;....]

I stand corrected!
Although as I use ctrl-c / ctrl-v it doesn't make much of a difference :p



EDIT: DOH. The irony of messing up my quotes is not lost on me

So I had to go back an re-examine some my beliefs as results of reading your objections.

With regard to the issue of the tares. Quickly getting to the point. It requires self-examination of your beliefs and your belief system. Without a little knowledge it make this difficult but not impossible. I evaluated the major contenders and came back to where I think should be which is that I still think Christian got it right. I do not like to call to attention another beliefs and challenge them but if we take no action we allow the bad guys to win. That to me is unacceptable.

So I am sure you can find similar things on the Internet. If you use to sources one to make sure yep they really did say something like that and the other for criticism. You hopefully will get to where I am. No guarentees in life but it is a good place to start.

1. http://www.sacred-texts.com/

2. http://contenderministries.org/

I looked at Hinduism, Baha'i, and Islam as the main contenders. I don't think I can be consider without bias. So I invite you all to do the same. I have previously discussed Buddha so I won't do that again here.

Islam seems to have several problems. I invite you to make your own conclusions.



Baha'i seems to have fewer but one critical one in my opinion. Jesus did say he was the only son.

To pick our debate back up at "Is that the fault of the individual". I can say it is more the fault of the ones that lead us astray.

Question:
So you don't have an answer on that one? You just 'hope' God will do something different to what he says he will do. You hope God / the Church is lying about if and how He will punish our sins.

Answer: The second coming is the answer however at that point it will be too late. I am sure the church and God are not lying about how they will punish us.


Question: That's great for the one or two, or hundred people that get this lucky influence. Shame for the billions of others who are damned, who he chooses not to help.

Answer: You need to ask for that is critical that fulfills Free Will requirement. That you are coming of your own volition, no one is forcing you to, you are doing it by choice.

Question: And if he DOES show everyone, but some of us do not realize, then why did he not try harder? Why did he not make us able to fathom these hints? Why does he render himself impotent?

Answer: He will try harder in the second coming. He wants you to decide for yourself rather than hand you what to believe. We render him impotent, he is the same as he has always been.

Question: God can do whatever he wants. He can make that situation with free will, but does not. Or do you doubt God's power to create free will in that situation?

Answer: He can do whatever he wants. He could make it free will but is sticking with Free Will. I do not doubt God's power for anything.

With regard to "Creating us Flawed". The concept of Original Sin is a difficult one. This is a church doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

Roman Catholic teaching regards original sin as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. It explicitly states that original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants.

I think he created us with a "clean slate" and the "world" makes us flawed. I believe you can resist but few can do this. The reason because sin is so prevalent. The whole point for the bad guys is to make is so easy you don't even know you are doing it and some cases. Rationalization is the other armor we can talk ourselves "into" our "out of" anything.

Question: Where does the world come from? Who sets the parameters for what can exist within it? Who KNOWS what will exist in it, what choices will be made, who will be eternally damned and who will not, before any of it occurs, but lets it all happen?

Answer: God and God knows without having to say it a bunch of times. This lead back to Free Will again. The more I read the more I see many of the road lead back here.


Question: GnI put a succinct argument to this. I will just add that who the dealer is, is irrelevant. God allows the dealing.

Answer: I take it back. God is the sovereign ruler off all you see. He is the only one allowed to deal. There must be a reason for whatever he does but he does not share it with mankind. Every outcome like dealing cards is known and controlled to some extent beforehand. What some of you are asking is why did I get a Jack of Hearts. I say only God knows why and he does not share that information with us. This does not imply predestination.

This is a good start. I will go through the remaining questions. Some time for reflection is a positive thing.

Sometimes, it's not about spin.

There are numerous things that would make Jesus a False Prophet.

First - his teachings about working on the Sabbath, and what you are allowed to eat.

Deuteronomy 18:9 "When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations."

Preaching that it was okay to do certain types of work on the Sabbath, or that it was okay to eat previously proscribed food... is challenging Levitical Law - it is commission of 'abomination' by 'doing after' the manner of the other nations.

Second - his prophecy (outside the age of prophecy) failed to be fulfilled.

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

If you can find even one prophecy unfulfilled, it makes the prophet false. Even prophecy that is correct... even miracles... are not enough to offset ONE faulty prophecy

Deuteronomy 13:1-5 "If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn [you] away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. "

Prophecy, dreaming of dreams, signs and wonders... all can be marks of the FALSE prophet, as well as the true prophet.

The markers in Deuteronomy 13 for FALSE prophecy are not keeping commandments, and making (even one) prophecy that is unfulfilled.

And, for an example of prophecy unfulfilled:

Luke 21:32 "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled."

That is - when you set a time limit (such as one generation, or even more specifically, THIS generation) and the prophecy is not fulfilled within that scope, it is false prophecy.


It is fairly easy to spot a False Prophet, according to the wisdom handed down by Jehovah God. Unfortunately, 'Jesus' is marked as a False Prophet by pretty much every marker.



As usual your questions take much more work.

This generation question:

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was-jesus-wrong-about-his-second-coming.html

They seem to explain it pretty well. I am not going try to redo it in here. So we see the Jews will be around until the second coming which is probably good to know if you are one.

Challenging the law is okay if and only if he is who he says he is. Otherwise we maybe in trouble.

Buddhism has the least problems, but it just doesn't feel appropriate for me...

As for the "original sin", what about nonhumans? What about when we find intelligent life elsewhere?

Buddhism has the least problems, but it just doesn't feel appropriate for me...

As for the "original sin", what about nonhumans? What about when we find intelligent life elsewhere?
Elsewhere? Shouldn't there be some here first?

Update that may have been relevant to this thread once:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7842769.stm
ASA concludes that the "THERE IS PROBABLY NO GOD" ads don't violate advertising code.

Elsewhere? Shouldn't there be some here first?

Well said. I laughed I must admit.

Elsewhere? Shouldn't there be some here first?

You do have a point! Still, if they find a more intelligent species on another planet who never heard of christianity...

You do have a point! Still, if they find a more intelligent species on another planet who never heard of christianity...

You would have to ask them what they were told I guess. There is no indication that applies to non-humans, animals, rocks, trees etc.

Update that may have been relevant to this thread once:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7842769.stm
ASA concludes that the "THERE IS PROBABLY NO GOD" ads don't violate advertising code.

I think the ASA handled properly which points back at the person or group that put it up. Which is where the blame should lie.

As usual your questions take much more work.

This generation question:

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was-jesus-wrong-about-his-second-coming.html

They seem to explain it pretty well. I am not going try to redo it in here. So we see the Jews will be around until the second coming which is probably good to know if you are one.

Challenging the law is okay if and only if he is who he says he is. Otherwise we maybe in trouble.

No - challenging the law makes him a false prophet - even if he is ALSO the son of god and/or god himself. Because Jehovah made his promises, and told us how to spot a false prophet, and told us what to DO with false prophets... and their prophecy.

So - it doesn't matter if he claimed to be god incarnate. It doesn't even matter if he WAS god incarnate. What he did in his earthly ministry makes him a false prophet - which makes him an enemy of god. So - that "if he is who he says he is..." is irrelevent.